Excelsior Correspondent
JAMMU, Aug 6: State High Court today dismissed the petition filed by Pranav Gandotra, Incharge TSO seeking quashment of FIR registered by Vigilance Organization Jammu.
After hearing Senior Advocate BS Salathia with Advocate Ashish Sharma for the petitioner whereas Deputy AG Raman Sharma for the Vigilance Organization, Justice Janak Raj Kotwal observed, “the principles governing the exercise of inherent jurisdiction under Section 561-A of the Code by now are well settled. High Court under Section 561-A of the Code (Sec. 482 of the Central Code) is vested with inherent jurisdiction to make such order as may be necessary to give effect to any order under the Code or to prevent abuse of process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. This power, though it may be used in appropriate cases, has to be used sparingly and cautiously”.
“Supreme Court has held that where the allegations made in the FIR, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety, do not prima facie constitute any cognizable offence or make out a case against the accused, the FIR can be quashed to prevent misuse of the process of court and to secure the ends of justice”, Justice Kotwal said.
He further observed, “contention raised on behalf of the petitioner that the allegations in the impugned FIR on their plain reading do not constitute commission of any offence is without any substance and is liable to fail”, adding “the FIR discloses prima facie dishonest and fraudulent misappropriation of the Government money by the petitioner, which was under his control, by paying the dealers’ amount less than what was due to them and reflecting higher amount in the office records”.
“The contention that no misappropriation has taken place is equally without any substance. The contents of the FIR are to be read with and in backdrop of the result of verification conducted by the VOJ, it can rather be said prima facie that a brazen modus operandi for siphoning out the Government money was adopted in the office of the petitioner in which primary role could have been played by none else than the petitioner, who indisputably was responsible for signing the cheques for withdrawing the money from official Bank Account and certifying the disbursement, as has been done on the statement of payments produced by the petitioner’s counsel”, High Court further said.
Justice Kotwal further observed, “correct it is that as per the record produced before this court, none of the dealers seems to have raised any grievance in regard to the less payment but that does not rule out the possibility of misappropriation”, adding “lodging of information by the aggrieved person is not sine qua non for setting in motion the action for commission of a criminal offence”.
How the dealers had issued receipts for the amount more than that actually paid to them and why they did not agitate against less payment are the questions to be investigated though a glimpse is available in the statements of four dealers recorded by the VOJ, Justice Kotwal observed.
With these observations, High Court dismissed the petition.
Follow our WhatsApp channel