Jammu February-28-2024- Justice Vinod Chatterji Koul of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court while quashing the order of Special Judge Anticorruption whereby Special Judge Anticorruption returned the closure report in FIR NO 09/2014 under Sections 5(1)(d), 5(2) of J&K P. C. Act and Section 120-B RPC for further investigation, observed that undoubtedly the judicial process should not be an instrument of oppression or needless harassment. The court should be circumspect and judicious in exercising discretion and should take all the relevant facts and circumstances into consideration before issuing the process or proceeding in a matter, lest it would be an instrument in the hands of initiators as vendetta to harass the persons needlessly.
Through the medium of this petition preferred under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, petitioners seek quashment of Order dated 23rd October 2019, passed by Special Judge (Anticorruption,) Jammu, for short “court below”, in File no.03/2019/Ikhtami in FIR no.09/2014, on the grounds made mention of therein. They also pray to declare FIR no.09/2014 police station VOJ (now Anticorruption Bureau) Jammu as illegal and abuse of powers of investigation since neither respondent no.2 could be accepted to be a person competent or aggrieved of lodging complaint nor could such a complaint after a delay of more than 18 years have been entertained. FIR no.09/2014 under Sections 5(1)(d), 5(2) of J&K P. C. Act and Section 120-B RPC, on a complaint of one Prof. S. K. Bhalla, who is respondent no.2 herein, was lodged by the then police station Vigilance Organization, Jammu, now Anticorruption Bureau (ACB). Consequently, investigation was set in motion by ACB. This concluded in closure of the case as not proved. Report to this extent was filed. However, court below held findings of investigating agency devoid of any reason and did not accept it. The court below returned the final report, directing SSP ACB Jammu to carry out further investigation.
Justice Vinod Chatterji Koul after hearing both the sides observed that in view of the facts and circumstances of the present case, if the police, after concluding in-depth investigation, filed a closure report, this Court is of a considered opinion that the Trial Court by ignoring the comprehensive facts given in the closure report that petitioners herein had not been in service when disputed mutation(s) were attested, has directed in terms of impugned order for further investigation, which in essence and core, is a direction for fresh investigation. Therefore, the Trial Court has not applied its mind in its entirety in rejecting the closure report filed by the police. Order impugned, on its plain reading and perusal, would show and suggest that the Trial Court has travelled beyond its jurisdiction. The Trial Court has mentioned that the revenue officers/authorities have “reduced their public office into their private business place”. By such a comment, the Trial Court has generalized the whole revenue department indulging in acts which attract the provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act and simultaneously as if the revenue department and officers working there have reduced their public office into their private business place. The Trial Court ought not to have made such comments more particularly when there was no proof available before it to make such view and opinion. Not only this, such a view and opinion will ostensibly influence the investigating agency/officer to make the report on and in accordance with those lines which have been made by the Trial Court in impugned order. And at the same time, the Trial Court, without entering into the arena of full-fledged trial and without recording statements of the witnesses, without their cross-examination and without proving the case, has virtually punished and convicted the petitioners.
Justice Vinod Chatterji Koul observed that Inherent power, given the above discourse, given to the High Court under Section 482 Cr. P.C. is with the purpose and the object of the advancement of the justice. In case the solemn process of the Court is sought to be abused by a person with some oblique motive, the Court has to thwart the attempt at the very threshold. Authority of the court exists for advancement of justice and if any attempt is made to abuse that authority so as to produce injustice, the court has power to prevent abuse. It would be an abuse of process of the court to allow any action which would result in injustice and prevent promotion of justice. In exercise of the powers, the Court would be justified to quash any proceeding if it finds that initiation/continuance of it amounts to abuse of the process of court or quashing of these proceedings would otherwise serve the ends of justice. .For the reasons discussed above, the instant petition is allowed and order 23rd October 2019, passed by Special Judge (Anticorruption,) Jammu, in File no.03/2019/Ikhtami in FIR no.09/2014, is set-aside. The closure report filed by the police is hereby accepted. As a consequence of which, all the criminal proceedings arising out of FIR no.09/2014 against petitioners are hereby quashed. JNF