Courts shouldn’t scuttle investigation if FIR disclosing commission of offences: HC

Excelsior Correspondent
Srinagar, Aug 21: High Court has held that the disproportionate assets of the ex-Government employee contained in the FIR registered by the Anti Corruption Bureau (ACB) needs to be investigated and courts should not scuttle investigations when it denotes commission of offence.
The ex-employee Mohabat Ali Khan was working as Junior Assistant in Rural Development Department and was arrayed an accused in FIR No. 08.2021on 26.07.2021 under Section 5(1)(e) read with 5(2) of J&K Prevention of Corruption Act for disproportionate of assets during his service period.
Justice Ali Mohammad Magrey while keeping in view the scope of section 482 Cr.PC said, the Court should refrain from making prima facie decision at interlocutory stage when entire facts of the case are incomplete, hazy and more so, when material evidence is yet to be collected and issues involved could not be seen in their true perspective.
Court turned down the arguments and the Judgment referred to and relied upon by the senior counsel appearing for the petitioner-Khan and said the citation is factually distinguishable, therefore, is no applicable to the present case.
“Prima facie it appears that the allegations contained in the FIR relate to the offences which are cognizable and non-cognizable, warrant investigation. In view of the facts and circumstances and law quoted herein above, this petition has no merit, therefore, dismissed”, Justice Magrey concluded.
Petitioner-Khan claims to have resigned from the post of Junior Assistant in the Rural Development Department, Kupwara, in 2017, which, as stated, has been accepted by the respondents on 15.01.2018 and thereafter he is doing his business and trading, paying his regular income taxes, but while doing so, he is stated to be implicated in FIR No. 08/2021 on 26.07.2021 under Section 5 (1) (e) read with 5 (2) of J&K Prevention of Corruption Act Svt 2006 read with Section 168 RPC.
The FIR reveals that while in active Government Service the petitioner accumulated disproportionate assets beyond his known source of income in the shape of moveable/immoveable properties on his own name as well as in the name of his family members.