news details |
|
|
| HC refuses to quash corruption case of granting illegal building permission | | | Early Times Report
JAMMU, Aug 16: Justice Sanjeev Kumar of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court today refused to quash an FIR registered by Vigilance Organization Kashmir in granting illegal building permission at Srinagar.
FIR No. 12/2015, impugned herein has arisen from Building Permission No. 58/2008 dated 28.04.2008 granted in favour of the beneficiaries Waseem Mushtaq and others on the allegation that the petitioners-Public Servants Hammid Ahmed Wani and Feroz Ahmad Mir who were Member Secretary and Member representing LAWDA in the BOCA, abused their official position and in furtherance of criminal conspiracy, granted Building Permission No 58 of 2008 dated 28.04.2008 in favour of petitioners Waseen Mushtaq and others for construction of four storeyed commercial complex with revolving restaurant and basement for parking purpose on the plot of land under Survey Nos. 885 min and 930 min situated opposite Exhibition Ground, Srinagar. This permission, it is alleged, was granted in supersession of earlier four building permissions.
The impugned FIR, it is claimed, was registered pursuant to verification conducted by the VOK after it received written complaint regarding various illegal structures coming up in Srinagar city. During verification by the VOK, it came to light that BOCA of Srinagar Municipal Corporation had granted building permissions to some builders at Exhibition Ground and Bishamber Nagar in contravention of norms in vogue for such building permission.
Justice Sanjeev Kumar after hearing both the sides observed that the allegation in the FIR, that the sanction of revised permission legitimizing the illegalities and the violations committed by the accused-beneficiaries, was result of a criminal conspiracy hatched by the accused-public servants and the beneficiaries, is, prima facie, inferable from the circumstances narrated in the impugned FIR itself. Without saying much on the issue, I am of the view that the aforesaid aspects should be left, to be determined by the trial Court at appropriate stage and it could well be the stage of framing of charges in the case.
Court further observed that with regard to the argument of Jan, senior counsel, that the decision to reopen the closed case was taken by the respondents arbitrarily is not substantiated by the record and, therefore, cannot be accepted. In view of the aforesaid discussion and without going much into the merits of the controversy, lest it may prejudice either side, I am of the considered view that the petitioners have not been able to make out a case for invoking extraordinary jurisdiction vested in this Court under Section 482 CrPC to quash the impugned FIR and the investigation carried pursuant thereto. Accordingly, CRM(M) Nos. 186/2021, 163/2021 and 192/2021 are dismissed.
—JNF |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
