Manish Suri vs State

Mr. Muzaffar Hussain Attar, J. (Oral) - ""An Education purchased by money is worst than no education at all."" (Socrates).

This saying of a great philosopher is referred to as opening remark of this order in view of the allegations made and on the basis of which, F.I.R

No. 27 of 2013 dated 28th October, 2013 came to be registered in Police Station, Crime Branch, Srinagar, u/s 5(2) Prevention of Corruption

Act, 420, 468, 471, 120 - B RPC and F.I.R No. 36/2013 dated 07th November, 2013, registered at Police Station, Crime Branch, Jammu, u/s

420, 468, 471, 120-B RPC, read with section 5(2) Prevention of Corruption Act.

The Chairman, J&K Board of School Education (J&K BOSE), addressed a communication to Inspector General of Police (IGP), Crime

Branch, J&K. The communication was sent on the basis of Enquiry Report of the Joint Secretary, J&K, BOSE. Report of the Joint Secretary was

also made part of the aforesaid communication.

The enquiry conducted by the Joint Secretary, J&K, BOSE, brought to surface that Elementary Teachers Training (ETT) Course conducted by

ETT Colleges, has, allegedly, turned out to be a huge scandal, where money in hundreds of crores has changed hands in the shape of bribe and

almost all stake holders were, allegedly, involved in the said loot. The report also revealed that all sorts of malpractices were committed, in as

much as, allegedly, neither registration of candidates was done in time nor classes were started and nor were the hostel facilities provided. In the

report it was further alleged that the candidates were lured and amounts, ranging from Rs.45, 000/- to Rs. 80,000/- were extracted from each one

of them through touts for providing them degrees/certificates by these ETT Colleges, who had not even fulfilled basic norms/standards laid down

by the National Council for Teachers Education. It was also alleged in the report that these Institutions were allowed/permitted to run the courses

without issuance of No Objection Certificates from the State Government, which is granted after inspection of these Colleges. It was further

alleged in the report that a mafia in league with BOSE authorities is involved in this huge scandal. It was further stated that almost 480 colleges are

operating in the State of J&K, out of which around 80 Colleges are in Kashmir Division and around 320 Colleges are in Jammu Division. It is in

this backdrop that the aforesaid two FIRs were registered at Police Station, Crime Branch, Srinagar and Police Station, Crime Branch, Jammu,

respectively.

It is admitted at bar by learned counsel for the parties that report u/s 173 Cr.PC has been filed before the Courts of competent jurisdiction both

at Srinagar and at Jammu. However, at Jammu, the report has been filed in respect of the academic year 2002-03 and investigation in respect of

other years is continuing. It is also admitted at bar that the petitioner has not been named as accused in F.I.R No. 27 of 2013, registered at Police

Station, Crime Branch, Srinagar and, accordingly, he has not been send up for trial before the Court of competent jurisdiction at Srinagar for the

reason that he was not operating any Institute in Kashmir Division. It is further admitted at bar that report u/s 173 Cr.PC in respect of the

academic year 2002-03 has been filed before the Court of competent jurisdiction at Jammu and the present petitioner figures as accused in the

Challan.

This petition is filed on the ground that two FIRs have been registered in respect of commission of offences, which constitute one single

transaction and the second FIR, registered at Jammu against the petitioner, is illegal in law and deserves to be quashed, consequently, report filed

u/s 173 Cr.PC against the petitioner would also require to be quashed.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that FIRs, both at Srinagar and Jammu, have been registered in pursuance to one single

communication dated 03rd September 2013, send by the Chairman, J&K BOSE to IGP, Crime Branch, Srinagar. Learned counsel further

submitted that this communication was sent because of the Enquiry Report of the Joint Secretary, J&K, BOSE, Srinagar. Learned counsel

submitted that offence u/s 120-B RPC has been added to both the FIRs, which would mean that a conspiracy was, allegedly, hatched by the

authorities of J&K, BOSE with the owners of ETT Institutes. Learned counsel submitted that the moment F.I.R. No. 27 of 2013 was registered at

Police Station, Crime Branch, Srinagar, the said police station was duty bound to investigate all the allegations, including those made against the

petitioner as well and, in law, there was no requirement of filing of second FIR in respect of the same set of allegations. Learned counsel further

submitted that the course adopted by the respondent - State is not permissible in law. Learned counsel referred to section 5 of the Police Act,

1983 and submitted that in terms of the aforesaid provision of law, the entire police establishment under the General Police District shall, for the

purpose of the Act, be and deemed to be one police functionary. Learned counsel also submitted that in the backdrop of section 5 of the Police

Act, 1983, when a case was registered at Police Station, Crime Branch, Srinagar, it was not permissible to register another FIR in respect of same

set of allegations in Police Station, Crime Branch, Jammu. Learned counsel, in support of his contention, referred to and relied upon judgement of

Hon'ble the Supreme Court, reported in (2001) 6 SCC 181 & (2013) 6 SCC 348. Learned counsel referred to the relevant paragraphs of the

said judgements to show that second FIR, in respect of same set of allegations, could not be filed against the same person. Learned counsel

submitted that in view of law laid down by the apex court, the second FIR, filed against the petitioner at Jammu, is required to be quashed and,

consequently, report filed u/s 173 Cr.PC against the petitioner, was also required to be quashed. Learned counsel submitted that in terms of

section 5 of the Police Act, 1983, the power to investigate the crime rests with Police Stations both at Srinagar and at Jammu. Learned counsel

further submitted that the petitioner has been prejudiced because of registration of FIR. Learned counsel also submitted that the ETT Colleges

have been opened up in pursuance to a Government order, thus, the allegations could have been investigated by registering one single FIR. He

further submitted that the evidence collected in the FIR registered at Jammu could be used against the petitioner in the first FIR registered at

Srinagar.

Mr. R.A. Khan, learned AAG, submitted that in view of the allegations made in the report of Joint Secretary, J&K, BOSE, which was part of

communication of the Chairman, J&K BOSE dated 03rd September, 2013 and for the reason that these ETT Institutions are operational in two

divisions of the State of J&K, it had become necessary to register two separate FIRs, one at Police Station, Crime Branch, Srinagar and another

at Police Station, Crime Branch, Jammu. Learned counsel, while referring to the Status Report filed by the respondents, submitted that the

Government, in terms of SRO 202 of 1999 dated 03rd June, 1999, has declared the office of Crime Branch, Srinagar and office of Crime Branch,

Jammu to be Police Stations respectively, having jurisdiction for the purpose of registration and investigation of crimes in their respective Divisions.

Learned counsel also referred to paragraph 06 of the Status Report to indicate that the petitioner figured as accused in FIR No. 36 of 2013 only,

registered at Police Station, Crime Branch, Jammu and did not figure as accused in FIR registered at Police Station, Crime Branch, Kashmir

(Srinagar). Learned counsel submitted that since the petitioner owned the ETT Institute/College in Jammu Division and offences have, allegedly,

been committed by him within the territorial jurisdiction of Police Station, Crime Branch, Jammu, he figured in that FIR and after the investigation,

conducted for the academic year 2002-03, report u/s 173 Cr.PC, besides others, has been filed, against him as well in the Court of competent

jurisdiction. Learned counsel referred to and relied upon judgement of Hon'ble the Supreme Court, reported in 2013 SAR (Criminal) 394 to

substantiate his submissions that the FIR against the petitioner, in law, is competent, in view of law laid down by the apex court in the aforesaid

judgement and the same cannot be quashed.

Section 5 of Jammu & Kashmir Police At, 1983 is taken note of :

Constitution of the force

The entire police establishment under the general police district, shall, for the purpose of this Act, be and deemed to be one police force, and shall

be formally enrolled; and shall consist of such number of officers and men, and shall be constituted in such manner, and the members of such force

shall receive such pay, as shall from time to time be ordered by the Government.

The aforesaid section deals with the constitution of force. It provides that the entire police establishment under the General Police District shall,

for the purpose of this Act, be deemed to be one Police Force and shall be formally enrolled and consist of such number of officers and men and

shall be constituted in such a manner, as shall, from to time, be ordered by the Government. The Government, in terms of SRO 202 of 1999 dated

03rd June, 1999, has constituted two Police Forces, named as Crime Branch, Kashmir and Crime Branch, Jammu and has conferred power upon

them as that of Police Stations, having jurisdiction to register and investigate offences within their respective jurisdictions. The contention that FIR

No. 27 of 2013, on the basis of one single communication, having been registered at Police Station, Crime Branch, Srinagar, would not warrant

registration of another FIR, viz. F.I.R No. 36 of 2013 at Police Station, Crime Branch, Jammu, has to be rejected for the reason that the alleged

offence has been committed within the territorial jurisdiction of Police Station, Crime Branch, Jammu in respect of the petitioner. It was, thus, the

Police Station, Crime Branch, Jammu alone, which had jurisdiction to register the case, in view of allegations made against the petitioner and

investigate the same. This would also be the fate of all such other owners of the Institutes/Colleges, which are functional and operational in Jammu

Division. The Police Station, Crime Branch at Srinagar would have jurisdiction to investigate allegations made against the owners of those ETT

Institutes/Colleges, which are functional and operational in Kashmir Division and over which Crime Branch, Srinagar has the territorial jurisdiction.

Further contention that it is one of the same communication of the Chairman, J&K BOSE, which has become basis for registration of FIR at Police

Station, Srinagar and second FIR cannot be registered at Police Station, Jammu also has to fall to ground lock, stock and barrel, in as much as, the

communication of Chairman, J&K BOSE, would not confer jurisdiction on Police Station, Crime Branch, Srinagar in respect of conducting of

investigation about the case, which had its roots in Jammu Division and which would fall within the jurisdiction of Police Station, Crime Branch,

Jammu. This communication was only an information send to IGP, Crime Branch. The alleged offences, as is shown in the Status Report, has had

many limbs. The same communication would, thus, become basis for registration of cases in two police stations of the Crime Branch of the State.

As already stated, the communication of Chairman, J&K BOSE, was only an information to the IGP, Crime Branch, who is the one authority for

the entire State, but he himself did not constitute a police station, so he had to further forward the said communication to the two concerned police

Stations at Srinagar and Jammu for proceeding in the matter in accordance with law.

In the facts of this case, it is only one FIR, which has been registered against the petitioner, i.e. at Police Station, Crime Branch, Jammu. No

other FIR is registered against the petitioner in respect of same set of allegations. The judgements referred to at the bar by learned counsel for the

petitioner would operate only if, for same set of allegations, two FIRs were registered. Since the petitioner does not figure as accused in F.I.R No.

27 of 2013 and accordingly, he has not been send up for trial, the law laid down by Hon'ble the Supreme court, in the aforesaid two cases, would

not govern the case of the petitioner.

The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has been prejudiced because of registration of FIR at Jammu, is a

submission, which does not even merit consideration. As already stated, only one FIR has been registered against the petitioner. An FIR is

registered in a Police Station, having jurisdiction to investigate the offences when a complaint discloses commission of cognisable offences. Mere

registration of FIR does not, in itself, indict a person. The allegation made in the complaint is to be investigated by the Investigating Officer to

ascertain its truthfulness. It is only after investigation is concluded that a view is taken by the Investigating Officer about commission of offence by a

particular person. The petitioner could not be and did not figure as accused in the FIR registered at Police Station, Crime Branch, Srinagar. The

allegations in respect of all the owners of ETT Institutes would not be same in all the cases. Their functioning also would not be same in all the

circumstances. Every case would be governed by the material/evidence, which would be collected during investigation of the case. The Police

Station, Crime Branch, Srinagar had no jurisdiction to register a FIR against the petitioner and in which FIR, he does not figure as accused and

which FIR, as already stated, has been closed by filing report u/s 173 Cr.PC against named accused persons, whose Institutes are functional in

Kashmir Division. The petitioner was not named accused in this FIR and, accordingly, no Challan has been filed against him at Srinagar. It cannot,

thus, be said, both in fact and law, that the petitioner is prejudiced.

The further submission that ETT Colleges have been opened up in pursuance of a Government order, so the allegations against them could be

investigated in one single FIR, is also of no consequence. The ETT Colleges are being opened up in accordance with law. Whether they are

opened up in terms of one single Government order or different Government orders, will not have any effect on the investigation or registration of

cases. The further submission made that evidence collected in the FIR registered at Police Station, Crime Branch, Jammu, could be used against

the petitioner in FIR registered at Police Station, Crime Branch, Srinagar, cannot also become a ground in law to allow this petition. The Police

Station, Crime Branch, Srinagar, has no jurisdiction to register a case and investigate same against the petitioner. The petitioner's effort to scuttle

the trial, already launched against him in the Court of law at Jammu, cannot be permitted to succeed as none of his legal rights have been infringed.

The insatiable human greed has caused immense damage to our educational system as well. It is only to be imagined as to what will happen to

a nation where, without studying, educational degrees would be provided to people. The country will become nation of block heads, thus, making

its future dark.

Before parting with, it is appropriate to place on record what Shakespare has said:

No legacy is as rich as honesty.

For the above stated reasons, this petition, being meritless, is dismissed along with connected IAs.