Excelsior Correspondent
JAMMU, Feb 28: High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh has held that the judicial process should not be an instrument of oppression or needless harassment and the court should be circumspect and judicious in exercising discretion and should take all the relevant facts and circumstances into consideration before issuing the process or proceeding in a matter.
Justice Vinod Chatterji Koul held this while quashing the order of Special Judge Anticorruption whereby Special Judge returned the closure report in FIR No 09/2014 under Sections 5(1)(d), 5(2) of J&K Prevention of Corruption Act and Section 120-B RPC for further investigation.
Through the medium of this petition preferred under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, petitioners sought quashment of order dated 23rd October 2019, passed by Special Judge (Anticorruption,) Jammu in FIR No.09/2014.
They also prayed to declare FIR No.09/2014 Police Station VOJ (now Anticorruption Bureau) Jammu as illegal and abuse of powers of investigation.
After hearing both the sides, Justice Koul observed, “if the police, after concluding in-depth investigation, filed a closure report, this court is of a considered opinion that the trial court by ignoring the comprehensive facts given in the closure report that petitioners had not been in service when disputed mutation(s) were attested, has directed in terms of impugned order for further investigation, which in essence and core, is a direction for fresh investigation”.
“Therefore, the trial court has not applied its mind in its entirety in rejecting the closure report filed by the police. Order impugned, on its plain reading and perusal, would show and suggest that the trial court has travelled beyond its jurisdiction. The trial court has mentioned that the revenue officers/authorities have reduced their public office into their private business place. By such a comment, the trial court has generalized the whole Revenue Department indulging in acts which attract the provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act”, High Court said.
“The trial court ought not to have made such comments more particularly when there was no proof available before it to make such view and opinion. Not only this, such a view and opinion will ostensibly influence the investigating agency/officer to make the report on and in accordance with those lines which have been made by the trial court in impugned order”, High Court said, adding “at the same time, the trial court, without entering into the arena of full-fledged trial and without recording statements of the witnesses, without their cross-examination and without proving the case, has virtually punished and convicted the petitioners”.
Justice Koul observed, “authority of the court exists for advancement of justice and if any attempt is made to abuse that authority so as to produce injustice, the court has power to prevent abuse. It would be an abuse of process of the court to allow any action which would result in injustice and prevent promotion of justice”.
“In exercise of the powers, the court would be justified to quash any proceeding if it finds that initiation/continuance of it amounts to abuse of the process of court or quashing of these proceedings would otherwise serve the ends of justice”, Justice Koul said.
Accordingly, the petition was allowed and order dated 23rd October 2019, passed by Special Judge (Anticorruption,) Jammu, in FIR No.09/2014 was set-aside. “The closure report filed by the police is hereby accepted. As a consequence of which, all the criminal proceedings arising out of FIR no.09/2014 against petitioners are hereby quashed”, the High Court added.
Follow our WhatsApp channel
