Early Times Report
Jammu, Aug 6: State High Court today dismissed the petition filed by Pranav Gandotra Incharge TSO seeking quashment of FIR registered by Vigilance against him.
Justice Janak Raj Kotwal of J&K High Court Jammu Wing after hearing Sr. Adv BS Salathia with Adv Ashish Sharma for the petitioner observed Supreme Court has held that High Court ordinarily would not exercise its inherent jurisdiction to quash a criminal proceeding and, in particular, in FIR unless the allegations contained therein, even if given face value and taken to be correct, in their entirety disclose no cognizable offence. Nonetheless, Court has further said that the High Court would not hesitate to exercise its jurisdiction in appropriate cases though no hard-and-fast rule can be laid down.
Justice J R Kotwal further observed that 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. 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. To say precisely, the verification has revealed that, firstly, out of the total amount of Rs. 81, 20,914 only an amount of Rs. 21, 42,500 was allowed to remain in the official Bank Account and rest of the amount was withdrawn. The dealers were issued cheques for the amount less than the amount due to them. 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 the aforementioned four dealers recorded by the VOJ, which are available on the record produced on behalf of the VOJ, Justice JR Kotwal observed. With these observations High Court dismissed the petition. |
