CRMC/402/2018 of MOHAMMAD ANWAR MIR Vs STATE OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR THROUGH COMMISSIONER/ SECRETARY TO GOVT GENERAL ADMINISTRATION DEPT on 30 December 2022

JUDGEMENT

1. Through the medium of this petition, the petitioner is seeking quashment of the prosecution as well as charge sheet filed against the petitioner before the Court of Special Judge Anti-Corruption, Kashmir in case titled State Vs. Mohammad Anwar Mir in case FIR No. 19/1997 P/S VOK under Section 5 (1) (e) r/w Section 5 (2) P.C. Act 2006 and Section 12 and 14 J&K Public Men and Public Servants Declaration of Assets and other provisions Act 1983. of the prosecution as well as charge sheet filed against the petitioner before the Court of Special Judge Anti-Corruption, Kashmir in case titled State Vs. Mohammad Anwar Mir in case FIR No. 19/1997 P/S VOK under Section 5 (1) (e) r/w Section 5 (2) P.C. Act 2006 and Section 12 and 14 J&K Public Men and Public Servants Declaration of Assets and other provisions Act 1983.

2. The case set up by the petitioner is that the respondents have registered a false and frivolous FIR No. 19/1997 under Section 5 (1) (e) r/w Section 5 (2) P.C. Act 2006 and Section 12 and 14 J&K Public Men and Public Servants Declaration of Assets and other provisions Act 1983, against the petitioner on the ground that he is possessing assets disproportionate a false and frivolous FIR No. 19/1997 under Section 5 (1) (e) r/w Section 5 (2) P.C. Act 2006 and Section 12 and 14 J&K Public Men and Public Servants Declaration of Assets and other provisions Act 1983, against the petitioner on the ground that he is possessing assets disproportionate to his known source of income. The petitioner was at that time Divisional Manager SICOP, Kashmir. It is stated that the respondents sought sanction for prosecution of the petitioner from the competent authority, viz Small Scale Industries Development Corporation Limited. In turn Managing Director of Corporation vide communication No. SICOP/MD/160/1186 dated 17.07.1999 sought clarification relating to accumulation of assets disproportionate to his known source of income as determined by the State Vigilance Organization. It is further averred that the petitioner filed his detailed reply prayed that no sanction for prosecution be granted as there is no case worth the name made out by the investigating agency, which can stand the test of facts and in law. It is stated that without considering the representation of the petitioner sanction for prosecution was granted by the competent authority vide Order No. SICOP/MD/1601/1189 dated 27.09.1999. The petitioner on coming to know about the same filed another representation with the competent authority, viz Hon’ble Minister Industries and Commerce (Chairman SICOP). The competent authority after examining the representation of the petitioner on its merits found prima-facie that the grant of sanction for prosecution of the petitioner has been accorded without considering the matter on its merits. Accordingly, sanction for prosecution granted earlier vide Order No. SICOP/MD/1601/1189 dated 27.09.1999 was kept in abeyance till the disposal of the representation filed by the petitioner. It is further stated that the respondents did not file any charge sheet against the petitioner till he was in service. The petitioner retired on superannuation on 28.02.2005. It is further stated

that the respondents filed a charge sheet against the petitioner in FIR No. 19/1997 P/S VOK under Section 5 (1) (e) r/w Section 5 (2) P.C. Act 2006 and Section 12 and 14 J&K Public Men and Public Servants Declaration of Assets and other provisions Act 1983, before the Special Judge Anti-Corruption Kashmir, Srinagar, on 20.02.2008, viz after 03 years of the retirement of the petitioner and after 06 years, when the sanction for prosecution of the petitioner was withdrawn by the competent authority, who also took cognizance of the same and the petitioner was admitted to the bail. Not only that the charge sheet filed by the respondents before the competent court of law. The petitioner raised objections, regarding the same before the learned Court of Special Judge Anti-Corruption Kashmir for taking cognizance of the charge sheet on the basis of xerox copies of the documents as well as statements. It is stated that the trial Court passed an order on 06.03.2015, by charging the petitioner for the commission of offence punishable under Section 5 (1) (e) r/w Section 5 (2) P.C. Act 2006 and Section 12 and 14 J&K Public Men and Public Servants Declaration of Assets and other provisions Act 1983, to which the petitioner pleaded not guilty.

3. Respondents have filed the status report, wherein they have stated that during the course of investigation, it was found that the accused/petitioner has willfully and intentionally neglected to submit his annual property returns regularly and thereby has tried to conceal the properties possessed and raised by him within and outside the territorial limits of J&K State during his service tenure without obtaining prior permission from the prescribed authority as envisaged under service during the course of investigation, it was found that the accused/petitioner has willfully and intentionally neglected to submit his annual property returns regularly and thereby has tried to conceal the properties possessed and raised by him within and outside the territorial limits of J&K State during his service tenure without obtaining prior permission from the prescribed authority as envisaged under service Conduct rules and Public Men and Public Servants Declaration of Assets and other Provisions Act, 1983. During the course of investigation it was found that petitioner has constructed a palatial house at Baghi-Hyderpora, purchased a flat at Vasant Kunj in New Delhi and also purchased a plot of land at Sidra Jammu measuring 1.11 Marlas besides has got his children admitted in best schools of the Valley. Further, the petitioner was found living a luxurious life and spending lavishly on his family. In order to eliminate the possibilities of tempering and destruction of material evidence it was felt necessary to conduct the search of the house of the petitioner immediately after registration of the case against him. Accordingly a team of officers of VOK (now ACB) was constituted and in order to ensure transparency during the house search and eliminate all doubts of malice and harassment, the services of an Executive Magistrate 1[st] class Shri G. M. Bhat Tehsildar, Srinagar, were acquired, who accompanied the team and remained physically present during the process of house search. It is further stated in the objections that during the house search of petitioner at Baghi Hyderpora besides various documents, the household articles worth Rs. 11,564/-, textile items worth Rs. 99,478/-, electronic goods worth Rs. 81,800/-, Gold ornaments worth Rs. 20,000/-, furniture worth Rs. 44,750/- and cash worth to the tune of Rs. 7200/- totalling worth Rs. 2,64,822/- were also seized. It is stated that the petitioner had various bank accounts in his own name and in the name of his wife in various banks in and outside the State.

4. The respondents have given brief details about the petitioner, which are reproduced as under:

“The investigation conducted revealed that the petitioner has various bank accounts in his own name and in the name of his wife in various banks in and outside the State. The perusal of the statements of the accounts collected from the concerned banks clearly indicates that consequent upon the lucrative postings which the accused has been enjoying throughout his service carrier, he has been able to deposit hefty sums in these accounts from time to time. The accused has throughout his service tenure indulged in corruption and has by misuse of his official position accumulated huge assets which are highly disproportionate to his known source of income.

It is worth while to mention that account No. 12068/55 being maintained by the accused and his wife jointly in State Bank of India, Gandhi Nagar, Jammu has been shown to have been closed on 26.05.1997. Though the wife of the accused/petitioner is a housewife and is completely dependent on the accused/petitioner but the statements have revealed that huge amounts have been deposited in the said account from time to time totalling Rs. 7,35,100/- through the account has been closed on 26.05.1997, viz after the raid was conducted by the VOK (now ACB) in the house of accused/petitioner. The statements submitted by the concerned Bank reveal that on the date of registration of the case against the accuse/petitioner on 24.05.1997 there was an amount of Rs. 1,99,076/- as balance amount in the said account and the same amount has been taken into account while calculating the assets of the accused/petitioner. Thus under this head the total amount of Rs. 7,200/- recovered during the house search of the accused/petitioner calculated on the basis of last balance.

The property statement reveals that the accused has been in receipt of rent to the tune of Rs. 15,000/- per annum from Hyderpora house and Rs. 12,000/- per month from his flat at Vasant Kunj, New Delhi, but the investigation revealed that these houses have never been let out on rent and accused/petitioner was not also able to produce any documents in support of his assertions.

The investigation culminated in the result that the accused Public Servant has acquired assets to the tune of Rs. 27,40,378.70/- quite disproportionate to his known sources of income. Whereas, the total income of the accused/petitioner from all means calculated in total is Rs. 10,05,130.38/- only. During the course of investigation the accused/petitioner was associated with the investigation and he was given fully opportunity to defend himself with regard to the huge disproportionate assets to which he totally failed.

5. I have heard learned counsel for parties and considered the matter.

6. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner cannot be subjected to unmerited and biased enquiry or investigation

Conclusion

launched at the behest of Respondents in colourable exercise of the official duty. It is also submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the impugned inquiry undertaken is without any jurisdiction as being devoid of any legal basis and initiated for an ulterior purpose under the garb of investigation and the petitioner has an enforceable right against being subjected to such inquiry the purpose of which stands vitiated under the efflux of law and that the presumptive nature of bias being associated with the impugned inquiry initiated pursuant to FIR is without any legal sanction and cannot be permitted to sustain. He also states that the investigating officers associated with the impugned inquiry are incapacitated with the association of bias in law and cannot be permitted to subject the petitioner to an unfair investigation. It is also stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the impugned inquiry initiated at the behest of the FIR being devoid of any credentials to satisfy the requirements of a lawful complainant cannot be permitted to initiate the illegal prosecution against the petitioner. It is also submitted that the genesis of the impugned inquiry emanates from the impugned FIR, cognized by the investigating agency is barred under law to be proceeded from and the protection granted to public servants in immune from the projections of FIR and cannot be permitted to hinder or place an embargo on the functioning of the petitioner. It is further submitted that the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 postulates impermeable protections of public servants with the object of curtailing frivolous FIR and the legislative presumption is always in favour of the public servant and the impugned inquiry under guise of inquiry cannot be permitted to

circumvent the statutory protections and any violation thereto renders the impugned inquiry without any justification in law and liable to be set at naught. It is further stated that the impugned inquiry by the efflux of bias and the protection provided under the Act of 1988, is rendered otiose. In this regard, it is submitted that the enquiry has been launched in absence of any prior permission granted by the Government and the same cannot be permitted to be undertaken by the Respondent-Investigating agency. The learned counsel for the petitioner has also submitted that the primary object of granting such protection is to insulate the public servants from the illegal effects of an unsustainable enquiry. The scope of preliminary enquiry being widened to such an extent can render the protections under Section 19 distant, and to safeguard any enquiry has been subjected to the permission of the Government and that the impugned enquiry being launched in absence of such permission is devoid of any legality and is hence liable to be set aside. He also states that the mobilization of the investigation being an outcome of the bias, is an abuse of the process of law and such a practice is discouraged by various judicial pronouncements which impair the functioning of the public officials leading to demoralization and undue harassment and that since there are no prospects of conviction on the basis of material placed on record nor the same can be foreseen from the legality of investigation, therefore, the enquiry/investigation conducted against the petitioner cannot be countenanced under law and the inherent jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Court is sought to remedy the wrong. It is also stated that the ACB during the probe has not followed the Circulars of General Administrative Department and the Central Vigilance Commission whereby the clear guidelines have been issued with regard to the FIRs to be registered against the Government servants and other officers. In this regard, it is submitted that there are clear guidelines issued by the General Administration Department and Central Vigilance Commission with regard to FIR to be registered and to be investigated upon.

7. The petitioner seeks exercise of inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the impugned FIR. Thus, it would be appropriate to say that the scope of Section 482 Cr.P.C. is well defined and inherent powers could be exercised by the High Court to give effect to an order under the Code, to prevent abuse of the process of court; and to otherwise secure the ends of justice. This extraordinary power is to be exercised ex debito justitiae. However, in exercise of such powers, it is not permissible for the High Court to appreciate the evidence as it can only evaluate material documents on record to the extent of its prima facie satisfaction about existence of sufficient ground for proceedings against accused and the court cannot look into materials, acceptability of which is essentially a matter for trial. Cr.P.C. to quash the impugned FIR. Thus, it would be appropriate to say that the scope of Section 482 Cr.P.C. is well defined and inherent powers could be exercised by the High Court to give effect to an order under the Code, to prevent abuse of the process of court; and to otherwise secure the ends of justice. This extraordinary power is to be exercised ex debito justitiae. However, in exercise of such powers, it is not permissible for the High Court to appreciate the evidence as it can only evaluate material documents on record to the extent of its prima facie satisfaction about existence of sufficient ground for proceedings against accused and the court cannot look into materials, acceptability of which is essentially a matter for trial.

8. The judicial conscience of the High Court should persuade it to quash such criminal proceedings in exercise of power vested in it under Section 482 Cr.P.C., if answer to all the steps, as enumerated herein after, is in affirmative, has been so said by the Supreme Court in Rajiv Thapar v Madan Lal Kapoor, 2013 (3) SCC 330:- such criminal proceedings in exercise of power vested in it under Section 482 Cr.P.C., if answer to all the steps, as enumerated herein after, is in affirmative, has been so said by the Supreme Court in Rajiv Thapar v Madan Lal Kapoor, 2013 (3) SCC 330:- “Based on the factors canvassed in the foregoing paragraphs, we would delineate the following steps to determine the veracity of a prayer for quashing, raised by an accused by invoking the power vested in the High Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure:

i. Step one, whether the material relied upon by the accused is sound, reasonable, and indubitable, i.e., the material is of sterling and impeccable quality?

ii. Step two, whether the material relied upon by the accused, would rule out the assertions contained in the charges levelled against the accused, i.e., the material is sufficient to reject and overrule the factual assertions contained in the complaint, i.e., the material is such, as would persuade a reasonable person to dismiss and condemn the factual basis of the accusations as false.

iii. Step three, whether the material relied upon by the accused, has not been refuted by the prosecution/complainant; and/or the material is such, that it cannot be justifiably refuted by the prosecution/complainant?

iv. Step four, whether proceeding with the trial would result in an abuse of process of the court, and would not serve the ends of justice?"

9. The case in hand, when examined on the touchstone of law laid down by the Supreme Court, does not at all persuade this Court to grant the relief prayed for by the petitioner in the instant petition. It is well settled law that Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure empowers the High Court to exercise its inherent powers to prevent abuse of the process of Court. The Supreme Court in State of Telangana v. Habib Abdullah Jeelani, reported in 2017 (2) SCC 779, has held that the powers under Section 482 Cr.PC or under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to quash the FIR, is to be exercised in a very sparing manner as is not to be used to choke or smother the prosecution that is legitimate. Inherent powers do not confer an arbitrary jurisdiction on the High Court to act according to whim or caprice. Such power has to be exercised sparingly, with circumspection and in the rarest of rare cases. Inherent powers in a matter of quashing FIR have to be exercised sparingly and with caution and only when such exercise is justifying by the test specifically laid down in provision itself. Power under Section 482 Cr.PC, is a very wide, but conferment of wide power requires the Court to be more conscious. It casts an onerous and more diligent duty on the Court.

10. The Supreme Court in State of Telangana v. Habib Abdullah Jeelani, reported in 2017 (2) SCC 779, has held that the powers under Section 482 Cr.PC or under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to quash the FIR, is to be exercised in a very sparing manner as is not to be used to choke or smother the prosecution that is legitimate. Inherent powers do not confer an arbitrary jurisdiction on the High Court to act according to whim or caprice. Such power has to be exercised sparingly, with circumspection and in the rarest of rare cases. Inherent powers in a matter of quashing FIR have to be exercised sparingly and with caution and only when such exercise is justifying by the test specifically laid down in provision itself. Power under Section 482 Cr.PC, is a very wide, but conferment of wide power requires the Court to be more conscious. It casts an onerous and more diligent duty on the Court.

11. The Supreme Court in the case of State of Haryana and others v. Bhajan

11. The Supreme Court in the case of State of Haryana and others v. Bhajan Lal and others, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335, has elaborately considered scope and ambit of Section 482 Cr.P.C. and Article 226 of the Constitution of India in the background of quashing the proceedings in criminal investigation. After noticing various earlier pronouncements, the Supreme Court made certain categories of cases by way of illustration, where the power under Section 482 Cr. P.C. can be exercised to prevent abuse of the process of the Court or secure ends of justice. Paragraph 102, which gives seven categories of cases where power can be exercised under Section 482 Cr. P.C. are reproduced as follows:

“102. In the backdrop of the interpretation of the various relevant provisions of the Code under Chapter XIV and of the principles of law enunciated by this Court in a series of decisions relating to the exercise of the extraordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code which we have extracted and reproduced above, we give the following categories of cases by way of illustration wherein such power could be exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently channelized and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised.

(1) Where the allegations made in the first information report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused. the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused.

(2) Where the allegations in the first information report and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under 156 (1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155 (2) of the Code. other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under 156 (1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155 (2) of the Code.

(3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused.

(4) Where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155 (2) of the Code.

(5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused.

(6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party. (7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge.”

12. In another case of State ofAndhra Pradesh v. Golconda Linga Swamy, reported in (2004) 6 SCC 522, the Supreme Court, while dealing with inherent powers of the High Court under Section 482 Cr. P.C., has observed and held as under:

“5. Exercise of power under Section 482of the Code in a case of this nature is the exception and not the rule. The Section does not confer any new powers on the High Court. It only saves the inherent power which the Court possessed before the enactment of the Code. It envisages three circumstances under which the inherent jurisdiction may be exercised, namely, (i) to give effect to an order under the Code, (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of court, and (iii) to otherwise secure the ends of justice. It is neither possible nor desirable to lay down any inflexible rule which would govern the exercise of inherent jurisdiction. No legislative enactment dealing with procedure can provide for all cases that may possibly arise. Courts, therefore, have inherent powers apart from express provisions of law which are necessary for proper discharge of functions and duties imposed upon them by law. That is the doctrine which finds expression in the Section which merely recognizes and preserves inherent powers of the High Courts. All courts, whether civil or criminal possess, in the absence of any express provision, as inherent in their constitution, all such powers as are necessary to do the right and to undo a wrong in course of administration of justice on the principle quando lex aliquid alique concedit, conceditur et id sine quo res ipsa esse non potest (when the law gives a person anything it gives him that without which it cannot exist). While exercising powers under the Section, the Court does not function as a court of appeal or revision. Inherent jurisdiction under the Section though wide has to be exercised sparingly, carefully and with caution and only when such exercise is justified by the tests specifically laid down in the Section itself. It is to be exercised ex debito justitiae to do real and substantial justice for the administration of which alone courts exist. 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 such 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 exercises of the powers court would be justified to quash any proceeding if it finds that initiation or continuance of it amounts to abuse of the process of court or quashing of these proceedings would otherwise serve the ends of justice. When no offence is disclosed by the complaint, the court may examine the question of fact. When a complaint is sought to be quashed, it is permissible to look into the materials to assess what the complainant has alleged and whether any offence is made out even if the allegations are accepted in toto. xxxxxx

7. In dealing with the last category, it is important to bear in mind the distinction between a case where there is no legal evidence or where there is evidence which is clearly inconsistent with the accusations made, and a case where there is legal evidence which, on appreciation, may or may not support the accusations. When exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code, the High Court would not ordinarily embark upon an enquiry whether the evidence in question is reliable or not or whether on a reasonable appreciation of it accusation would not be sustained. That is the function of the trial Judge. Judicial process no doubt should not be an instrument of oppression, or, needless harassment. Court should

be circumspect and judicious in exercising discretion and should take all relevant facts and circumstances into consideration before issuing process, lest it would be an instrument in the hands of a private complainant to unleash vendetta to harass any person needlessly. At the same time the Section is not an instrument handed over to an accused to short-circuit a prosecution and bring about its sudden death. The scope of exercise of power under Section 482 of the Code and the categories of cases where the High Court may exercise its power under it relating to cognizable offences to prevent abuse of process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice were set out in some detail by this Court in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal (1992 Supp (1) SCC 335)…… xxxxxxx

8 As noted above, the powers possessed by the High Court under Section 482 of the Code are very wide and the very plenitude of the power requires great caution in its exercise. Court must be careful to see that its decision in exercise of this power is based on sound principles. The inherent power should not be exercised to stifle a legitimate prosecution. High Court being the highest Court of a State should normally refrain from giving a prima facie decision in a case where the entire facts are incomplete and hazy, more so when the evidence has not been collected and produced before the Court and the issues involved, whether factual or legal, are of magnitude and cannot be seen in their true perspective without sufficient material. Of course, no hard and fast rule can be laid down in regard to cases in which the High Court will exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction of quashing the proceeding at any stage. (See : The Janata Dal etc. v. H.S. Chowdhary and others, etc. (AIR 1993 SC 892), Dr. Raghubir Saran v. State of Bihar and another (AIR 1964 SC 1)). It would not be proper for the High Court to analyse the case of the complainant in the light of all probabilities in order to determine whether a conviction would be sustainable and on such premises, arrive at a conclusion that the proceedings are to be quashed. It would be erroneous to assess the material before it and conclude that the complaint cannot be proceeded with. In proceeding instituted on complaint, exercise of the inherent powers to quash the proceedings is called for only in a case where the complaint does not disclose any offence or is frivolous, vexatious or oppressive. If the allegations set out in the complaint do not constitute the offence of which cognizance has been taken by the Magistrate, it is open to the High Court to quash the same in exercise of the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code. It is not, however, necessary that there should be meticulous analysis of the case before the trial to find out whether the case would end in conviction or acquittal. The complaint/F.I.R. has to be read as a whole. If it appears that on consideration of the allegations in the light of the statement made on oath of the complainant or disclosed in the F.I.R. that the ingredients of the offence or offences are disclosed and there is no material to show that the complaint/F.I.R. is mala fide, frivolous or vexatious, in that event there would be no justification for interference by the High Court. When an information is lodged at the police station and an offence is registered, then the mala fides of the informant would be of secondary importance. It is the material collected during the investigation and evidence led in Court which decides the fate of the accused person. The allegations of mala fides against the informant are of no consequence and cannot by itself be the basis for quashing the proceeding.”

13. The above settled position of law has also been reiterated by the Supreme Court in Priti Saraf & anr v. State of NCT of Delhi & anr, 2021 SCC

Online SC 206, and it has been said that inherent power of the High Court is an extraordinary power which has to be exercised with great care and circumspection before embarking to scrutinize a complaint/FIR/ charge-sheet in deciding whether the case is the rarest of rare cases, to scuttle the prosecution at its inception. It is settled that whether the allegations in the complaint were true, is to be decided on the basis of evidence during the trial. In the matter of exercise of inherent power by the High Court, the only requirement is to see whether continuance of the proceedings would be a total abuse of the process of the Court.

14. In the above backdrop it may be appropriate to mention here that Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, preserves the inherent powers of the High Court to prevent an abuse of the process of any court or to secure the ends of justice. The provision does not confer new powers. It only recognizes and preserves powers which inhere in the High Court. The High Court, while forming an opinion whether a criminal proceeding or complaint or FIR should be quashed in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr. P.C., must evaluate whether the ends of justice would justify the exercise of the inherent power. While inherent power of the High Court has a wide ambit and plenitude, it has to be exercised to secure ends of justice or to prevent an abuse of the process of any court.

15. The instant petition, when looked from all angles, requires and demands full dress trial and examination of facts by this Court as if it is in appeal and acting as an appellate court and to draw its own conclusion vis-à-vis impugned FIR, complaint and proceedings emanating therefrom. This is not the aim and objective of provisions of Section 482 Cr. P.C. more particularly when petition on hand does not unveil any ground muchless cogent or material one, to indicate that the inherent powers are to be exercised to prevent abuse of process of law and to secure ends of justice. In that view of matter, impugned FIR does not call for any interference qua petitioner and as a consequence of which, petition on hand is liable to be dismissed. full dress trial and examination of facts by this Court as if it is in appeal and acting as an appellate court and to draw its own conclusion vis-à-vis impugned FIR, complaint and proceedings emanating therefrom. This is not the aim and objective of provisions of Section 482 Cr. P.C. more particularly when petition on hand does not unveil any ground muchless cogent or material one, to indicate that the inherent powers are to be exercised to prevent abuse of process of law and to secure ends of justice. In that view of matter, impugned FIR does not call for any interference qua petitioner and as a consequence of which, petition on hand is liable to be dismissed.

16. For the reasons discussed above, the instant petition is without any merit and is, accordingly, dismissed with connected CM(s). Interim direction, if any, shall stand vacated. and is, accordingly, dismissed with connected CM(s). Interim direction, if any, shall stand vacated.

Srinagar30. 12.2022.“M. Yasin Dar”

(Vinod Chatterji Koul) Judge

Whether the order is reportable: Yes/No.