STATE TIMES NEWS
SRINAGAR: Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court on Friday quashed a FIR registered by Vigilance Organisation Kashmir (VOK) now Anti-Corruption Bureau J&K against Showkat Hussain Koul, Executive Engineer, PMGSY, Division Uri against whom VOK registered a FIR for alleged demanding and acceptance of Rs 5,90,000 illegal gratification.
Justice Sanjay Dhar, while quashing FIR No 5/2016 against the petitioner observed that the complaint, which has become basis of the impugned FIR, has been lodged by the complainant with an ulterior motive in order to settle score with the petitioner, who had recommended termination of his contract for not completing the allotted works within stipulated time period.
Justice Sanjay Dhar after hearing Senior Adv A H Naik for applicant whereas Senior AAG B A Dar for ACB observed that the Vigilance Organization did conduct a preliminary verification but I could not find anything worth the name in the verification file that would go on to suggest that an effort to find the reason as to why the complainant after having allegedly paid the bribe to the petitioner in April, 2011, chose to approach the agency as late as in December, 2013. Without undertaking this exercise, it was not open to the Vigilance Organization to rely upon the bald allegations of the complainant. The delay in lodging the complaint in the instant case assumes great significance in the face of the fact the contract of the complainant was terminated on the recommendation of the petitioner and it was only after the termination of the contract and subsequent re-tendering of the balance work, that the complainant chose to set the law into motion by filing the complaint. Without going into this aspect of the case and simply accepting the version of the complainant as a gospel truth, the enquiry officer has abdicated his legal duty and thereby landed himself into an error by setting the criminal proceedings into motion.
During the course of arguments Sr. AAG vehemently argued that there are documents on record of the case that would suggest that there was transfer of money from the account of complainant to the account of Dr. Aijaz Ahmad Kamili, who in turn had cash transactions with the petitioner and his wife which cannot be ignored.
Court observed that it is true that there is material on record to show that the complainant had transferred a sum of Rs 90,000 to account of Dr Aijaz Ahmad Kamili and it is also a fact that there were a number of banking transactions between said Dr Aijaz Ahmad Kamili and petitioner as well as his wife. This, however, does not lead us anywhere as these transactions do not indicate that it is the petitioner who had accepted money from the complainant. The bank statements would show that there have been several transactions between the petitioner and Dr Aijaz Ahmad Kamili even prior to the date of alleged transfer of bribe money and subsequent thereto as well. Thus, just because the complainant credited an amount of Rs 90,000 to account of Dr. Aijaz Ahmad Kamili who was having bank transactions with petitioner or his wife for many years, does not lead to the conclusion that the petitioner had accepted any money from the complainant. Therefore, it cannot be stated that there is any material on record to even remotely suggest that the petitioner has accepted the bribe money from the complainant. The argument of learned Senior AAG, therefore, deserves to be rejected,” the Court observed.
With these discussions, Justice Sanjay Dhar was of the considered opinion that the complaint, which has become the basis of impugned FIR, has been lodged by the complainant with an ulterior motive in order to settle score with the petitioner who had recommended termination of his contract. Justice Sanjay Dhar further observed that this is a fit case where the Court should exercise its discretionary powers under Section 482 of CrPC (corresponding to Section 561-A of the Jammu and Kashmir Code of Criminal Procedure) to quash proceedings that have been initiated against the petitioner. Accordingly, the petition is allowed and impugned FIR bearing No. No.05/2016 and criminal proceedings emanating there from against petitioner are quashed.