news details |
|
|
| HC refuses to quash FIR against ex-Chairman of J&K Bank | | 3,000 illegal backdoor engagements in J&K Bank | | Early Times Report
SRINAGAR, June 28: The Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court has dismissed the petition filed by Parvez Ahmad Nengroo seeking quashing of FIR registered by anti-corruption bureau (ACB) in much publicized case of alleged 3000 illegal backdoor engagements in J&K Bank.
Justice Sanjay Dhar while dismissing the petition, observed that counsel for the petitioner that the offences, which are subject matter of two FIRs, have arisen out of a single conspiracy which commenced with the tenure of the then Chairman, Sheikh Mushtaq Ahmad and it continued even after he demitted the office and was replaced by the petitioner herein as the Chairman of the Bank.
On this ground it is urged that offences arising out of the two FIRs form part of the same transaction and, as such, the second FIR is not competent. The argument, at first blush, appears to be attractive but when the facts narrated in the two FIRs and the charge sheets arising out of the first FIR are scrutinized carefully, the argument does not stand the test of sameness and the consequence test which are necessary for quashing the subsequent FIR.
Justice Dhar further observed that so far as the impugned FIR is concerned, the same relates to the larger conspiracy of appointments of all Banking Attendants and Assistant Banking Associates that have been made during the period from the year 2011 up to the year 2019. As per the preliminary verification, 1003 backdoor appointments have been made during the tenure of accused Mushtaq whereas 1256 illegal appointments have been made during the tenure of the petitioner herein.
It is not the case of the petitioner that all the illegal appointments have been made through a single order at one and the same time. As is clearly revealed from the material on record, these appointments have been made from time to time over a period of about eight years by issuing a number of appointment orders in violation of the set norms. Thus, it is a case of distinct incidents having occurred which do not form part of the same transaction though the modus operandi for these illegal appointments may have been similar.
Each appointment order alleged to have been made by the petitioner and the co-accused constitutes a separate offence and, as such, the instant case does not satisfy the test of sameness. The court observed that this is not a fit case where this Court should exercise its jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Cr. P. C. The petition is, accordingly, dismissed. It is, however, made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the allegations made in the impugned FIR. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
