news details |
|
|
| Court directs Advocate General to file status report in two weeks | | Making mockery of rules, 2 agencies conduct inquiry into same case | | Avinash Azad
Jammu, Feb 23: Making mockery of its own rulebook, two agencies of state government have conducted inquiry of the same case and now in response to a writ file, Court has directed Advocate General to file status report within two weeks.
According to case detail available with Early Times, a writ petition was filled by Surinder Bharati seeking cancelation of second inquiry being conducted by Nowshera Police on same case which was being inquired by Crime Branch Srinagar, Justice Bansi Lal Bhat of High Court Jammu, on February, 19 directed Advocate General for filling status report within two weeks.
"Crime Branch Srinagar, had already initiated Preliminary Investigation into inter district fake job rocket, meanwhile on January 15, the Nowshera Police also started preliminary investigation over said case", the writ read.
The petitioner alleged that he was being defamed by police under political patronage. "I am being implicated in false allegation to be involved in fake job racket, which had surfaced in state few years back", the petition reads, adding that being famous among locals in his native area, the locals politicians were defaming the petitioner. "The complaints with the intention to defame the petitioner in the society and to influence the respondent caused it to published some defamatory statements in various newspapers and TV Channels and the false defamatory were published in news paper on January 11, 2014 and same was also relayed by some TV Channels on January 10, 2014. As soon as the petitioner listened and knew, the petitioner approached Additional SP Nowshera, from where the petitioner was asked to attend the enquiry which was scheduled on January 15, 2014 at the office of Additional SP Nowshera", the petition reads, adding that occasionally, the Enquiry Officer from Crime Branch Srinagar was also reached at SP office on same day for verification into the same matter for the same allegations and on the complaint of the same fraudulent complaints.
It further reads that before EO, Crime and SP Nowshera, the petitioner in the reply given two options to the verifying authorities/Enquiring Officer and the fraudulent complaints for imposing criminal liability on the petitioner or discharging the petiotioner from the allegations as under. If complaints make statements of allegations against the petitioner of receiving any money for providing fake appointment orders of jobs in the government departments on oath, the petitioner will pay entire amount as alleged by the complaints and admit himself guilty irrespective of reality. The petitioner will make statement on oath that no any money/ amount directly or indirectly has been received by the petitioner from the fraudulent complaints and the complaints admit that they are making false allegations. The petitioner given opportunity to the fraudulent complainants to adopt and exercise any one of the two options as mentioned above.
The fraudulent complainants denied to accept any option and only became adamant to make false statements against the petitioner on such happenings the EO Crime Brach was given preference by the SP Nowshera to conduct enquiry into the matter under law as the preliminary verification was already initiated some months ago by the EO crime brach Kashmir.
The EO recorded the statements of the complainants and other persons who happened to had been connected with the happenings of the matter under law on January 15, 2014. The enquiry is under process and likely to be finalized very soon and a case will be registered against the real offenders. The petitioner mentioned in writ petition claimed that he has been raising voice against illegal activities being performed by some mafias in Kalakot. He has also served upon the fraudulent complaints and other persons including some new papers, a registered legal notice claiming compensation and damage up to the tune of Rs 50,00,00,000 on account of defamation caused by the complainants and other persons. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
