Srinagar, August 6, KDC: Holding that a preliminary enquiry is not an indispensable legal requirement before registering a corruption case if source information discloses a cognizable offence, the High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh has dismissed a petition filed by an Incharge Range Officer seeking the quashing of a disproportionate assets (DA) FIR registered against him.
A Bench of Justice M A Chowdhary dismissed the petition filed by the Forest Department official under Section 482 CrPC, which challenged FIR No. 26/2017 registered by the Anti-Corruption Bureau (ACB), Jammu, under Sections 5(1)(e) read with Section 5(2) of the J&K Prevention of Corruption Act, 2006.
The petitioner, who joined service as a Forester in May 2008 and rose to Incharge Range Officer, had contended that the FIR was illegal as no preliminary enquiry was conducted prior to its registration. He further argued that the nine-year delay in completing the investigation violated his fundamental right to a speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution.
Rejecting the first contention, Justice Chowdhary cited landmark Supreme Court precedents, including Lalita Kumari v. Govt. of U.P. and recent 2025 rulings, to emphasize that a preliminary enquiry is desirable but not mandatory in every corruption case.
“Where the material available with the investigating agency itself discloses commission of a cognizable offence, failure to conduct a preliminary enquiry does not vitiate the registration of the FIR,” the Court held.
Addressing the argument regarding the delayed investigation, the Bench observed that mere lapse of time does not automatically entitle an accused to seek quashing of criminal proceedings, especially in complex financial crimes. The Court noted that the ACB probe uncovered a 348% surge in assets relative to the officer’s known sources of income over a check period spanning from 2008 to 2017.
According to the status report filed by the ACB, the officer and his wife amassed huge wealth, including three sports manufacturing business concerns (M/S Shails Sports, M/S Shakti Sports, M/S Satyoti Sports), multiple commercial trucks, luxury vehicles—including a Toyota Fortuner, a Swift car, and a Bullet motorcycle—along with lakhs in frozen bank accounts and lockers.
The Court further said that the investigation now stands completed and the final report has been submitted to the General Administration Department (GAD) through ACB Headquarters for accord of governmental sanction to prosecute.
“The power under Section 482 CrPC is intended to prevent abuse of the process of law or to secure the ends of justice. It is not meant to frustrate a lawful prosecution where the allegations in the FIR disclose the commission of a cognizable offence and the investigation has yielded material which is yet to be tested in accordance with law,” the Bench concluded.
Dismissing the petition and all connected applications, the High Court granted liberty to the ACB to proceed further in accordance with law upon receiving sanction from the competent authority.
Advocate Jagpaul Singh represented the petitioner, while Additional Advocate General Raman Sharma appeared with Advocate Saliqa Sheikh for the Anti-Corruption Bureau. (KDC)
