JUDGMENT : 1. Through the medium of this Writ Petition, filed under Sections 103/104 of the Jammu and Kashmir Constitution (as then was applicable), the Petitioner seeks issuance of an appropriate Writ, order or direction, including one in the nature of ‘Writ of Certiorari’ for quashing the FIR No. 38/2015 registered by the Respondent herein. Besides, the Petitioner also seeks a direction restraining the Respondents to proceed further in the matter. 2. In the Petition, it is asserted that in terms of Government Order No. 396-Edu of 2000 dated 28th of April, 2000, the Respondent-State launched an ReT Scheme and under this Scheme, the Education Department, in the year 2000, advertised two vacancies of ReT in Primary School Gund Panah, Haranjguroo, Beerwah and the Petitioner, being an eligible candidate, applied for one of the vacancies; that the Petitioner was considered and found eligible for the post and his name figured in the panel prepared by the Education Department; that, on being approved by the Chairman of the Selection Committee, i.e., Deputy Commissioner, Budgam, the Zonal Education Officer, Hardapanzoo issued the engagement Order No. ZEO/LP/235 of 2000 dated 12th of May, 2001 and consequent to his engagement, the Petitioner joined the said post in Primary School Gund Panah, Beerwah. 3. It has been further pleaded that in terms of the Scheme, the Petitioner had to be regularized as a General Line Teacher on completion of five years of service as ReT, as such, the Education Department processed his case for regularization and submitted the same to the Directorate of School Education, who issued Order No. 2462-DSEK of 2007 dated 15th of December, 2007, granting approval for the services of the Petitioner as General Line Teacher; that consequent to the aforesaid Order, the Chief Education Officer, Budgam regularized the services of the Petitioner as General Line Teacher vide Order No. 08-CEOB of 2008 dated 28th of January, 2008 and the Petitioner had been continuing as Teacher since the year 2001. It was alleged that the Chief Education Officer, Budgam, in the meanwhile, passed Order No. CEOB/Est.Regl/ReT/08/2579-80 dated 14th of February, 2008, thereby keeping the order of regularization of the Petitioner in abeyance; that aggrieved of the said Order, the Petitioner filed a civil Suit and the Order passed by the Chief Education Officer, Budgam was kept in abeyance by the civil Court. It was further alleged that, in the meanwhile, a complaint appears to have been lodged before the Crime Branch that the academic certificates produced by the Petitioner are fake/forged and a case was registered vide FIR No. 25/2008 by the Police Station, Beerwah for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 420, 468, 471 & 120-B Ranbir Penal Code (RPC) and the charge sheet produced before the Court of law, which was pending. It was further alleged that the Respondent-Vigilance Organization, Kashmir (now ACB) registered a case vide FIR No. 39/2015 against the Petitioner and others under Section 5 (1) (d) read with Section 5 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and 120-B of the Ranbir Penal Code (RPC). 4. The Petitioner, being aggrieved of the registration of the aforesaid FIR by the Respondent herein, has challenged the same through the medium of the instant Petition on various grounds as projected in the memo of Petition. 5. Pursuant to notice, the Respondent filed Reply to the Petition filed by the Petitioner, asserting therein that the Petitioner, during his engagement as ReT, had submitted his fake marks certificate which was duly reported by the Board of School Education as fake and, accordingly, the matter was verified/enquired by the Crime Branch, Kashmir and, after investigation of the case registered at Police Station, Beerwah, vide FIR No. 25/2008, the charge sheet is sub-judice before the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate, Beerwah. 6. It was further asserted that the Respondent-Vigilance Organization, Kashmir, during an inquiry conducted vide verification No. 33/2012, found that the academic qualification certificates submitted by the Petitioner at the time of his engagement as ReT, on verification from the Board of School Education, were found fake and forged; that the Petitioner had been engaged as ReT vide Order No. ZEO/HP/235-250 dated 12th of May, 2001, showing his academic qualification as TDC; that the Respondent has been investigating the matter about considering the eligibility of the Petitioner for engagement as ReT and the role of the public servants who processed the case for approval as General Line Teacher. It was admitted that the case has been registered vide FIR No. 38/2015 at Police Station, Vigilance Organization, Kashmir for the commission of offences punishable under Section 5(1) (d) read with Section 5 (2) of the Jammu and Kashmir Prevention of Corruption Act, Samvat, 2006. 7. It was admitted that the case has been registered vide FIR No. 38/2015 at Police Station, Vigilance Organization, Kashmir for the commission of offences punishable under Section 5(1) (d) read with Section 5 (2) of the Jammu and Kashmir Prevention of Corruption Act, Samvat, 2006. 7. It was further pleaded that the subject of investigation before the Respondent herein, vide FIR No. 38/2015, was with regard to regularization of the Petitioner and the FIR which was registered and investigated by the Crime Branch, Kashmir has no relevance to the facts of the case registered with the Respondent-herein as the Crime Branch had investigated only to the extent of submission of fake marks certificates during the engagement of the Petitioner as ReT; that the Vigilance Organization, Kashmir, in no way, has reopened any FIR against the Petitioner, however, on the basis of the verification conducted by the Vigilance Organization, Kashmir, the instant FIR had been registered against the public servants involved, wherein the Petitioner is a beneficiary; that, despite verification from the Board of School Education and authentication of the certificates as fake, the public servants processed the case of the Petitioner for regularization as General Line Teacher and this is the subject matter of the case FIR No. 38/2015 of Police Station, Vigilance Organization, Kashmir. It was further pleaded that the certificates which the Petitioner is referring regarding ‘Adeeb-e-Mahir’ and ‘Adeeb-e-Kamil’ and Graduation have not been considered while issuing the order regarding his engagement as ReT as the qualification in the said engagement order has been shown as TDC, as such, his 10+2 academic qualification have been verified which, as per the report from the Board of School Education authorities, has been reflected as fake and forged. 8. 8. The Respondent, on a direction from this Court, filed a Status Report on 5th of June, 2023, wherein it has been stated that, in order to hoodwink and cover up the illegality committed by the Petitioner and the public servants, the Petitioner along with the said public servants, in league and connivance with each other, put the ‘Dabeer-i-Qabil’ certificate on record purportedly passed by the Petitioner from Urdu Board, Aligarh under Roll No. 206 and Registration No. 52951 in the year 1999; that the matter with regard to eligibility of the candidates having done ‘Dabeer-i-Qabil’ courses was taken up with the Director, School Education, Kashmir for clarification, who vide his No. DSEK/IMW/BNG-199/2021/1434 dated 31st of December, 2021, intimated that the ‘Dabeer-i-Qabil’ certificates are treated equivalent to 10+2 qualification certificate, provided the candidate passes 10+2 English subject from the Jammu and Kashmir Board of School Education and that the Petitioner had never passed 10+2 English subject from the Jammu and Kashmir Board of School, therefore, his basic engagement as well as his subsequent regularization orders are illegal, as such, the officers concerned, as public servants, have misconducted themselves while issuing the regularization order of the Petitioner, who was made as a beneficiary, hence, the case registered by the Respondent herein is required to be further investigated to unearth the truth. 9. Mr I. Sofi, the learned Counsel for the Petitioner, argued that the case against the Petitioner which was registered by the Crime Branch and the charge sheet laid before the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate, Beerwah, had been decided recording acquittal of the Petitioner as an accused and the case which the Petitioner faced, at the instance of the Crime Branch of the Police, was with regard to fake certificates produced by him at the time of his appointment. It was argued that, on earning the acquittal by the Petitioner, he cannot be made to face investigation or any other trial on the same facts of allegations by the Respondent herein involving the officers of the Education Department, who had dealt with the case of regularization of the Petitioner as General Line Teacher after his rendering five years of satisfactory service as ReT. Mr Sofi has vehemently argued that the case registered, vide the impugned FIR, is almost the same as was earlier registered vide FIR No. 25/2008 at Police Station, Beerwah by the Crime Branch and that the Petitioner cannot be made to suffer on account of ‘double jeopardy’ in view of the fact that the foundation of both the cases is same. He submits that the Petitioner is protected under Article 20(2) of the Constitution of India from suffering of ‘double jeopardy’ and, accordingly, prayed that the Petition be allowed and the impugned FIR be quashed. 10. Mr Mohsin-ul-Showkat Qadri, the learned Senior Additional Advocate General, appearing for the Respondent, ex adverso, argued that the Petitioner had produced fake and forged marks certificate at the time of regularization of his service, which had been made the basis to register the impugned FIR. He has argued that the earlier FIR No. 25/2008 registered at Police Station, Beerwah for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 467, 468 & 471 RPC was singularly against the Petitioner, who faced trial and got acquitted, however, the subsequent FIR registered by the Respondent herein is with regard to misconduct by the public servants, who knowingly that the Petitioner had been selected on the basis of fake and false educational qualification certificate, processed the case for his regularization and, on the basis of their illegal reports, the services of the Petitioner were regularized as General Line Teacher from that of ReT and that the public servants dealing with the case of regularization had not made any mention with regard to pendency of the case of forgery against the Petitioner, as such, the public servants and the Petitioner were in league and connivance to make an undue benefit to the Petitioner. Learned Counsel for the Respondent further argued that the Petitioner had not amended his Writ Petition due to subsequent development of his acquittal by the Court and the same cannot be argued without being pleaded by the Petitioner. 11. Heard learned Counsel for the parties, perused the pleadings on record and considered the matter. 12. Learned Counsel for the Respondent further argued that the Petitioner had not amended his Writ Petition due to subsequent development of his acquittal by the Court and the same cannot be argued without being pleaded by the Petitioner. 11. Heard learned Counsel for the parties, perused the pleadings on record and considered the matter. 12. Vide communication No. DSEK/IMW/BNG/199/2021/1434 dated 31st of December, 2021 issued by the Directorate of School Education, Kashmir to the Senior Superintendent of Police, ACB, South Kashmir, it has been intimated that, as per the ReT Scheme, the minimum qualification for ReT was 10+2 and, in view of the Government Circular No. 04-Edu of 2012 dated 6th of December, 2012, the qualification of ‘Dabeer-e-Qabil’ without English subject was not the required qualification. It was further clarified that for Urdu Board, Aligarh, the nomenclature of ‘Adeeb-e-Mahir’, as recognized by other Boards, is ‘Dabeer-e-Qabil’, which is equivalent to 10+2 only if the candidate passes 10+2 English only from the Jammu and Kashmir Board of School Education. The Petitioner is stated to have, though produced the certificate of ‘Dabeer-e-Qabil’, was not having 10+2 English subject passed from the Jammu and Kashmir Board of School Education at the time of his application for appointment as ReT, therefore, in absence of the required qualification of 10+2, the ‘Dabeer-e-Qabil’, being not equivalent to the same in absence of qualification of English Subject as 10+2 from the Jammu and Kashmir Board of School Education, the Petitioner could not be stated to have the required qualification, as such, on this accusation, the Respondent has rightly registered the case for investigation into the conduct of the public servants dealing with regularization case of the Petitioner as General Line Teacher in absence of the requisite qualification at the time of his appointment. 13. The contention of the learned Counsel for the Petitioner is that the Petitioner had already faced similar charges which could not be proved by the Crime Branch of the Police and, on the same charge, the Vigilance Organization, Kashmir, another Investigating Agency, cannot proceed as the same shall amount to ‘double jeopardy’. The principle of ‘double jeopardy’ is applicable to the prosecutions and not the investigations, therefore, this question can be raised only after the investigation of the case, if the charge is laid for the commission of the same offences of which the Petitioner had already faced charges and got acquitted. 14. The principle of ‘double jeopardy’ is applicable to the prosecutions and not the investigations, therefore, this question can be raised only after the investigation of the case, if the charge is laid for the commission of the same offences of which the Petitioner had already faced charges and got acquitted. 14. Article 20 (2) of the Constitution of India states that no person shall be prosecuted and punished for the same offences more than once. Section 300 (1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure also provides that a person, who has been tried by a Court of competent jurisdiction, for an offence and convicted or acquitted of such offence shall, while such conviction or acquittal remains in force, not be liable to be tried again for the same offence, nor on the same facts for any other offence for which a different charge from the one made against him might have been made under sub-section (1) of Section 221, or for which he might have been convicted under sub-section (2) thereof. Though, as submitted by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner, the foundation of both the cases seems to be the same as to the acceptance of fake/forged documents produced by the Petitioner with regard to his qualification at the time of his consideration and appointment as also regularization as well, however, the earlier case against the Petitioner was with regard to forgery of the documents, whileas, in the present case, it is projected that the Petitioner was ineligible on the basis of the certificate that he produced and on this basis, neither he could be appointed nor his services could have been regularization as the ‘Dabeer-e-Qabil’ qualification was not equivalent to 10+2 in view of the Circular No. 04-Edu of 2012 dated 6th December 2012. For the investigation of the case, registered vide the impugned FIR, in the considered opinion of this Court, it is in the interests of justice that the investigation is allowed to be carried out and, if on conclusion of the investigation which results into charge sheet, the Petitioner shall have a recourse of raising all the contentions that he has raised in this Petition before the Court having jurisdiction while considering the charge against him. In the event the investigating Agency formulates any of the offences of which he has been already tried and acquitted, obviously, he cannot be tried for those offences subsequently. In the event the investigating Agency formulates any of the offences of which he has been already tried and acquitted, obviously, he cannot be tried for those offences subsequently. 15. It is settled legal position that the High Court has to sparingly use the powers to quash the investigation of a case, especially when there seems to be an abuse of the process of law or to secure the ends of justice. Here, in this case, there seems to be no abuse of the process as the investigating Agency has been investigating the role of the public servants, particularly their conduct while considering the regularization of the Petitioner as General Line Teacher from the ReT on the basis of a certificate which had come under cloud in the earlier case and, without verification of the qualification, the services of the Petitioner are stated to have been regularized, therefore, the case has rightly been registered against those public servants for misconduct and the Petitioner, as beneficiary in the case. 16. For the foregoing reasons and observations made hereinabove, the Petitioner has failed to make out a case for quashment of the impugned FIR registered with the Respondent herein. The Petition is, thus, found to be devoid of any merit and substance and is, accordingly, hereby dismissed, along with the connected CM(s). Interim direction(s), if any subsisting as on date, shall stand vacated. There shall, however, be no order as costs. 17. The Respondent herein shall be at liberty to proceed further in the matter and conclude the investigation at an earliest, as the case had been registered way back in the year 2015.