AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
1) The petitioners, through the medium of instant petition, have challenged FIR No.21/2017 registered at Police Station, Vigilance Organization,
Srinagar, under Section 5(1)(d) read with Section 5(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act and Section 120-B RPC.
2) In the FIR it has been alleged that one Dr. M. S. Khatana, Incharge DSHO, Kupwara, received an amount of Rs.20,000/ from each applicant for
passing them in the examination of Stock Assistant Trainees Batch-I and II, 2016-17, conducted from 7th of June to 21st of June, 2016 at Principal
Training School, Nowshera, Srinagar. It was alleged that Dr. M. S. Khatana also leaked the question papers and allowed mass copying and also
circulated answer key for objective part of question paper among the students during the said examination. It has also been alleged that the
examination committee including Dr. Shaheen Ahangar, Incharge Principal Training School, Nowshera, Srinagar (petitioner No.1 herein), Dr. M. S.
Khatana, Incharge DSHO, Kupwara (petitioner No.2 herein, Dr. Tawseef Ahmad Malik, VAS, Kralpora (petitioner No.3 herein) and Dr. Irfan
Ahmad Mir, VAS Karnah (petitioner No.4), by acting in league with each other, abused their official position and conferred pecuniary advantage upon
themselves besides benefitting the candidates.
3) The main argument of the counsel for the petitioners was that all the candidates who had appeared in the examination had dis-associated
themselves with the complaint that had been lodged against the examination staff as also the Principal, Training School, Nowshera, Srinagar, and that
the allegation of illegal pecuniary advantage obtained by the petitioners was totally false and fabricated. The allegations of leakage of question papers
and mass copying were also denied.
4) Heard counsel for the petitioners.
5) The scope of interference by the court in exercise of powers vested in it under Section 482 of the Central Procedure Code is no longer res integra.
As held by the Apex Court in State of Haryana & ors vs. Ch. Bhajan Lal & ors, AIR 1992 SC 60,4 the condition precedent for recording of an FIR is
only disclosure of a cognizable offence. The officer incharge of the Police Station is statutorily obliged to register a case if he has reason to suspect
the commission of an offence, which, he is empowered under Section 156 of the Code to investigate.
6) According to the principles crystallized by the Apex Court in the Bhajan Lal’s judgment (supra), the powers under Section 561-A of the CrPC
(482) can be exercised in the following cases:
“1. Where the allegations made in the First Information Report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their
entirety do not prima-facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused.
Where the allegations in the First Information Report and other materials, if any, accompanying the F.I.R. do not disclose a cognizable offence,
justifying an investigation by police officers Under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section
155(2) of the Code.
Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the
commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused.
Where, the allegations in the F.I.R. do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted
by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated Under Section 155(2) of the Code.
Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever
reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused.
Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is
instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing
efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party.
Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for
wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge.â€
7) Testing the allegations levelled in the FIR on the touchstone of the law laid down in the aforementioned judgment, it cannot be said that the
allegations made in the FIR do not constitute an offence Section 5(1)(d) read with Section 5(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act and Section 120-B
RPC. The allegations are serious in nature and, in any case, are required to be investigated
8) For the reasons stated above, the petition is found to be without any merit and is accordingly dismissed along with connected CM.