Jammu & Kashmir High Court - Srinagar Bench
Mir Sajad Hussain And Ors vs Sho P/S Crime Branch on 12 October, 2022
S.No.67
Supplementary List
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
AT SRINAGAR
CRM(M) No.434/2022
Mir Sajad Hussain and Ors
.....Petitioner(s)
Through: Mr.Aijaz Ahmad Bhat, Advocate
V/s
SHO P/S Crime Branch, Kashmir Srinagar
..... Respondent(s)
Through: None
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY DHAR, JUDGE
JUDGMENT
12.10.2022
1) The petitioners have challenged FIR No.29 of 2021 for the offences
under Sections 420, 468, 471, 120-B IPC read with Section 5(2) of
P.C.Act, registered with Police Station, Crime Branch, Kashmir
Srinagar.
2) As per the impugned FIR, a complaint was made by the then Secretary
J&K Service Selection Board, alleging therein that a fake and forged
letter bearing No.SSB/Secy/Sel/2017/2745-47 dated 15.03.2018 has
been sent to Commissioner Secretary to the Government Industries
and Commerce Department, J&K, whereby recommendation
regarding appointment has been released, pursuant whereto three
candidates have been appointed to the posts of Assistant Handicrafts
Training Officers in the Industries and Commerce Department
Divisional Cadre Kashmir. It was alleged that the aforesaid
communication bears fake signatures of the complainant. It is further
averred in the FIR that actually a different letter bearing the same
CRM(M) No.434/2022
number and date has been sent by the complainant i.e, Secretary
Service Selection Board J&K to Principal Secretary to Government
Finance Department, whereby recommendation for appointment of 13
candidates to the posts of Accounts Assistants District Cadre Kupwara
has been issued.
3) During verification it was found that the communication dated
15.03.2018 addressed to the Commissioner Secretary to the
Government Industries and Commerce Department J&K under the
purported signatures of Secretary Service Selection Board J&K is a
forged one, in pursuance of which three persons namely Mir Sajad
Hussain, Ruby Jan and Arif Ahmad Bhat (the petitioners herein) have
been appointed. It was prima facie established that the aforesaid fake
communication has been prepared by forging the signatures of
Secretary J&K Service Selection Board by certain office bearers of
the Service Selection Board and the Handicrafts Department to confer
the benefit of appointment to the petitioners herein. According to the
impugned FIR, offences under Sections 420, 468, 471, 120-B IPC
read with Section 5(2) of the PC Act are prima facie disclosed against
the accused.
4) It has been contended in the petition that the petitioners had duly
participated in the selection process for the posts of Assistant
Handicrafts Training Officers in pursuance of the Advertisement
Notice issued by the J&K Services Selection Board and after having
qualified the selection process, they came to be selected. It is further
submitted that pursuant to the selection of the petitioners, they were
appointed on probation for a period of two years against the posts of
CRM(M) No.434/2022
Assistant Handicrafts Training Officers in terms of Order dated 380-
HD of 2018 dated 26.04.2018. It is averred that the petitioners
satisfactorily completed the period of probation and an order to this
effect was also issued. The service books of the petitioners are also
stated to have been prepared. It is averred that the appointment of the
petitioners was cancelled in terms of order dated 23.12.2020 and
24.12.2020, which are under challenge before the Central
Administrative Tribunal. On the basis of these facts, it has been
contended that the impugned FIR is liable to be quashed.
5) I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the
record.
6) It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioners that the
impugned FIR does not disclose any offence against the petitioners,
inasmuch as, they have duly participated in the selection process and
they have been appointed under a valid Government order. It has
been further contended that the petitioners have successfully
completed the probationary period and their service books were also
prepared. Thus, according to the learned counsel, now at this stage,
the petitioners cannot be booked for criminal offences on the ground
that the recommendation regarding their selection is based on a fake
communication.
7) If we have a look at the contents of the FIR it is clearly alleged that
the appointment of the petitioners to the posts of Assistant Handicrafts
Training Officers is based on a forged letter, whereunder the Services
Selection Board has recommended their appointment to these posts.
Thus the very basis of the appointment of the petitioners is under
CRM(M) No.434/2022
cloud. The question whether or not the recommendation letter is
forged one, is a matter of investigation. The preliminary verification
conducted by the respondents has, prima facie, established that the
said letter is forged. Therefore, the contents of the impugned FIR
clearly disclose commission of cognizable offences. The petitioners
are beneficiaries of this alleged forged letter, thus it cannot be stated
that they are not involved in the alleged offences.
8) Once it is shown that cognizable offences are disclosed from the
contents of the FIR, the Court cannot stop the investigation of the FIR,
as it is the statutory duty of the investigating agency to undertake
investigation in such cases.
9) It has been next contended by learned counsel for the petitioners that
respondent No.1 is not competent to undertake investigation in cases
relating to Prevention of Corruption Act. In this regard, the learned
counsel has placed reliance on Circular No.1 dated 03.09.1999 issued
by Inspector General of Police, Crime/Rlys.J&K, Srinagar, wherein it
is provided that as a matter of rule, the Crime Branch will not take up
investigation under the Prevention of Corruption Act.
10) The Crime Branch is a specialized investigating agency which,
in terms of SRO 202 dated 03.06.1999, has been declared as Police
Station. Entry 23 of the Annexure to the aforesaid SRO provides that
the Crime Branch shall have jurisdiction to take up investigation of
cognizable offences committed by or relating to public servants.
Therefore, there can be no doubt about the fact that the Crime Branch
does have jurisdiction to undertake investigation of cases where
CRM(M) No.434/2022
offences under the provisions of Prevention of Corruption Act are the
subject matter.
11) The circular relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioners
is an internal guideline for the officers of the Crime Branch and it is
not a Government order which can override the SRO 202 issued by
the Government. Even in the said Circular it has been clearly stated
that investigation of cognizable offences committed by or relating to
public servants can be undertaken by the Crime Branch under the
orders of the Inspector General of Police, which means that even such
cases can be investigated by the officers of the Crime Branch but the
same has to be done with the prior approval of Inspector General of
Police. Thus it cannot be stated that the Crime Branch does not have
jurisdiction to undertake investigation of the impugned FIR because it
involves investigation relating to offences under Prevention of
Corruption Act..
12) For the foregoing reasons, I do not find any merit in this
petition. The same is accordingly dismissed.
(SANJAY DHAR)
JUDGE
SRINAGAR
12.10.2022
Sarveeda Nissar
Whether the order is speaking: Yes/No
Whether the order is reportable: Yes/No
