1. These petitions have already been clubbed together as petitioners, who are revenues officer and beneficiaries of disputed land situated at village Khamba Tehsil Nowshera District Rajouri, have challenged the action of CBI while registering the FIR against them.

CRMC No.622/2016

2. Through the medium of instant petition filed under Section 561-A Cr.P.C., petitioner Girdhar Kumar, the then Naib Tehsildar Nowshera, seeks quashing of FIR No.RC004 2016 A0008/2016 under Section 120-B, 420, 467, 468, 471 RPC read with Section 5(2) and 5(1)(d) of the J&K Prevention of Corruption Act, 2006, registered by respondent No.1 on 3rd of November, 2016 qua the petitioner.

The said FIR reads as under:-

"It has been reliably learnt that (1) Major Sanjay Jain (10 JAK LI), (2) M.L. Manhas, SDO DESO, Rajouri, (3) Giridhar Kumar Naib Tehsildar, Noshewara and (4) Kamal Singh were part of criminal conspiracy. In pursuance to the said criminal conspiracy (1) Major Sanjay Jain (10 JAK LI), (2) M.L. Manhas, SDO DESO, Rajouri and (3) Giridhar Kumar Naib Tehsildar, Nowshera, being members of Board in year 2001, declared the land measuring 285 kanals 9 marlas (Khasra No.1497 to 1514) allegedly in village Khamba, Tehsil Nowshera under the occupation of defence forces in Defence Estate Case File No.JKR/313/HEQ, whereas, entries contained in JAMABANDI for the year 1969-70 in respect of Khasra Nos.1505, 1506, 1507, 1508, 1509, 1510, 1511, 1512, 1513 and 1514 reveals that the piece of land is under the occupation of Pakistan, thereby causing wrongful loss to the tune of Rs.10,51,370/-with corresponding wrongful gain to Kamal Singh.

It has further been learnt that Defence estate processes proposals for hiring of immovable properties for defence purposes. In this regard, funds are released towards rentals of the hired properties. For this purpose, a Board is convened, which declares the land in question under the occupation of defence forces. Subsequently, land rentals are disbursed to the rightful owner of land/property.

It has been further learnt that rentals in respect of aforesaid land have been processed in revenue extracts by Shri Giridhar Kumar, the then Naib Tehsildar in criminal conspiracy with (1) Major Sanjay Jain (10 JAK LI), (2) M.L.Manhas, SDO DESO, Rajouri, (3) Giridhar Kumar Naib Tehsildar, Noshewara and (4) Kamal Singh. By virtue of these revenue extracts, the land in question has been shown in records to be under the occupation of defence Authorities, whereas, as per Jamabandhi for the year 1969-70, land lies in Pakistan. Regular Case is therefore, registered and investigation entrusted to Inspector Taranjeet Singh, CBI, ACB, Jammu."

3. Petitioner has stated in the petition that respondent no.2 has been time and again harassing the petitioner by filing successive complaints before different forums including the Vigilance Organization, the respondent no.1, Governor House, etc. In a similar complaint filed before the Vigilance Organization Jammu, this Court in 561-A 354/2012 titled "Girdhar Kumar Versus State through SSP Vigilance Organization, Jammu" has already intervened and restrained the Vigilance Organization from proceeding further; that the Government of J & K has withdrawn its consent u/s 6 and 6A to the respondent no.1 to act and register offences in the State of J&K. Notwithstanding that, respondent no.1 was approached by respondent no.2 with a complaint and he has registered FIR no.08/2016 citing therein that it has been based on source information that too on 28.10.2016 while as the information relates to September 2016 as the petitioner has already represented against the complaint filed by respondent No.2 before respondent no.1. FIR impugned has been filed against the petitioner without any grounds whatsoever. Moreover, respondent no.1 has assumed parallel jurisdiction and has also committed contempt of the interim restraining order passed by this Court; that litigation regarding the land falling in survey numbers in respect of which the respondent no.1 has registered impugned FIR were subject matter of Other Writ Petition No.592/1994 titled "Billo Devi Versus Union of India"; LPA (OW) No.192/1998 titled "Union of India Versus Billo Devi" and SLP No.478/2000 titled "Union of India Versus Billo Devi" wherein the Union has unequivocally accepted that the land falls within a kilometer of the Line of Control and nowhere till Supreme Court it has been contested that the said land was occupied by Pakistan. Moreover, Policy has also been framed on the basis of SLP No.478/2001 and contrary to all the facts submitted, the impugned FIR is wholly illegal, arbitrary and malafide exercise of power, as such, an abuse of process of the Court, hence instant petition. It is further stated that the FIR impugned has been registered against four persons including a dead person, who has been cited as beneficiary of the amount of land rent compensation received; that Kamal Singh, deceased, was the co sharer of land falling in survey nos.1497 to 1514 measuring 285 kanals 09 marlas in Village Khamba, Tehsil Nowshera, Rajouri. That the petitioner, a retired public servant filed a petition under identical provisions of law under Section 561- A No.587/2016, but the same has been withdrawn on 21.11.2016 with liberty to file fresh one with better particulars. That respondent No.1, motivated by ulterior considerations and in contravention to the judgment passed by this Court in OWP No.592/1994 upheld by the Division Bench of this Court as well as the Supreme Court in Special Leave Petition No.478/2001, has lodged FIR; that pursuant to the SLP no. 478/2001 titled "Union of India Versus Billo Devi" recommendations were made by the GOC 25 Inf. Div on the Board Proceedings for requisition of land falling in survey nos.1497 to 1514 in village Khamba measuring 258 kanals 13 marlas, Tehsil Nowshera, Rajouri. Moreover, the GOC, 16 Corps also agreed with the recommendations of GOC 25 Inf. Div and Director, Defense Estates requested for issuance of ex post facto administrative sanction in compliance with the Court directions where after requisition order was passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Rajouri on 18.12 2002. It is further stated that afore stated requisition cleared the entire issue and land rent compensation was thereafter disbursed to eligible persons. Moreover, there were three co-sharers in the land and respondent no.1 has booked only a deceased person in the alleged issue and disbursal of compensation has never been challenged in any court of law till date; that respondent no.2 has been lodging various complaints against the petitioner in different forums that include the Vigilance Organization, Jammu, the Governors Secretariat and the Central Bureau of Investigation in addition to filing similar complaints before the local police. It is submitted that respondent no.2 has already in the year 2003 lodged a false and frivolous complaint against the petitioner and others before the VOJ which, though erroneously, culminated in filing of challan pursuant to which trial is pending before the court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Rajouri. Moreover, respondent no.2, in the year 2011, initiated another complaint against the petitioner and others which was got marked by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge Anti Corruption, Jammu but the High Court has restrained the Vigilance Organization Jammu from proceeding further in the said complaint. The impugned FIR No.RC004 2016 A0008/2016 under Section 120-B, 420, 467, 468, 471 RPC read with Section 5(2) and 5(1)(d) of the J&K Prevention of Corruption Act, 2006, lodged by CBI has been challenged on following grounds;-

i) Because the impugned FIR is bad and is non est in the eyes of law. The mandate of Section 6 and Section 6-A of Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 has not been adhered to in letter and spirit by the respondent no.1 while registering impugned FIR. Submitted that no consent has been obtained by the respondent no.1 from the State Government before registration of impugned FIR, as such, the impugned FIR being vitiated by illegality of procedure, is non est in the eyes of law and deserves to be quashed.

(ii) Because the respondent no.1 has cited source information on the basis of which the F.I.R impugned has been registered by him and in doing so, he has suppressed the factum of the complaint filed by the respondent no.2 thereby sending a definite impression that the respondent no.2 has exercised his discretion in registration of impugned FIR in a malafide manner. It is substantiated effectively in the light of the fact that CBI has set target of registration of specified number of FIRs in every office, a minimum of ten in number to be precise, failing which the CBI considers closing the office of a particular area. This apprehension has led to registration of impugned FIR also which demonstrates the haste of the respondent no.1 in registering impugned FI R.

iii) That the petitioner retired in the year 2005 and has been living his life peacefully until the respondent no. 2, motivated by his urge to extort money from the petitioner, went on a rampage to lodge successive complaints. His conduct can be very well gauged from the facts submitted in the petition. Viewed thus, mere suppression of information relating to complaint made by the respondent no.2 to the respondent no.1 will not make the base of FIR as being registered on source information. Another interesting twist in the impugned FIR relates to para 3 (c) therein in which it is mentioned that the information (source information) was received on 28.10.2016 at 17:30 hours with entry no. 03 having been made thereafter. It is however, submitted that the petitioner posted his representation on 13.10.2016 meaning thereby that the petitioner came into knowledge of the alleged complaint and verification initiated thereto on or before 13.10.2016. If that is so, then it certainly means that the information of cognizable offence was received before 13.10.2016 and facts have been manipulated by the respondent no.1 to suit his purpose only to register impugned FIR against the petitioner and others including a dead person. Viewed thus, settled law that FIR, though not an encyclopedia of events should mention the facts honestly and correctly as also that FIR relating to cognizable offence should be registered immediately, has been violated with impunity and on this ground itself, the FIR, actuated by malafides and an abuse of process of court, deserves to be quashed.

(iv) That in view of respondent no.2 having filed a complaint before the respondent no.1 against the petitioner for registration of FIR, what prevented the respondent no.1 from disclosing the name of the respondent no.2 as a complainant in the FIR rather that mentioning it as source information becomes all the more important and the petitioner contends that the impugned FIR has been registered with a malafide intent to harass the petitioner by the respondent no.1 only to achieve his target of registration of particular minimum number of FIRs in a calendar year.

v) Because the revenue entries(Jamabandi of 1995) reflecting corrected ground situation have remained unchallenged till date and nothing has been brought forth by the respondent no.1 to demonstrate that the said revenue entries have either been set aside or are a matter under adjudication before any competent court. Viewed thus, the registration of FIR is bad and malafide exercise of power by the respondent no.1 on the misconceived premise that records have been forged for ulterior purposes and ultimate disbursement of Land Rent Compensation. It is submitted that in respect of instant land, Honble Supreme court has also endorsed the right of the owners of said land over compensation for the land held by Indian Army.

(vi) That right from the date of filing of OWP No. 592/1994 by Billo Devi, Kamal Singh and Rattan Singh in 1994 till Supreme Court adjudicated the SLP which ultimately culminated in passing of requisitioning order as well as disbursement of compensation, at least thirty officials have played their role to bring the matter to its rightful conclusion, but at the behest of respondent no. 2 only the petitioner and other three persons have been pointed out one among whom has since expired. Viewed thus, the verification exercise and preliminary enquiry, in which the petitioner was never involved, on the instructions of respondent no. I was mere eyewash. This view is fortified by the fact that entire record pertaining to the issue has been seized by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Rajouri dealing with Chargesheet in FIR no. 01/2004 of VOJ. If that is the situation prevailing, then it leads to irresistible conclusion that respondent no. 1 registered impugned FIR without committed undue haste in doing so.

(vii) That Union of India has all along maintained that the land falling in survey nos.1497 to 1514 in village Khamba measuring 258 kanals 13marlas, Tehsil Nowshera, Rajouri is located within one kilometer from the line of control on Indian side. There has been no controversy over the existence of the location of land and no person has till date controverted the position of land except for the respondent no. 2 that too since 2003 before criminal for a without adverting to civil or revenue remedies for correction thereof in case the same were wrong. Falsely claiming to be the owner of land in question and deliberately omitting to challenge the revenue entries of 1995, if a person has locus to challenge, before any competent civil or revenue court and taking a preemptive step by setting criminal law in motion to serve his ends sends an impression that the respondent no. 2 has the sole motive of attempting to falsely nail the petitioner as amply discernible from his conduct till date.

(viii) That impugned F I R is a result of complete non application of mind by the respondent no.1 as he has jumped gun without adverting to the number of factors underlying the factual background of the issue, decision of this Honble Court in OWP no.592/1994 upheld by Division Bench and Supreme Court and policy framed by Union of India on directions of Supreme Court, intervention of this Honble Court in 561-A Cr.P.C. No.354/2012 omission of any person to challenge the revenue entries of 1995 before competent courts, non disclosure of complainants name and rather building the edifice of the impugned FIR on alleged source information, factum of pending trial of identical issue, outcome of complaint filed by the respondent no.2 before Governor of J& K State and non consideration of the representation of the petitioner during the verification proceedings. FIR impugned defeats the very object of Criminal law and is sheer abuse of process of the court and has resulted in grave injustice to the petitioner, as such, is contrary to the spirit of the DSPEA, 1946 and the code of criminal procedure, thus deserves to be quashed.

(ix) That casual attitude of the respondent no. 1 in registering the impugned FIR can be gauged from the fact that para 3 of the facts stated in the impugned FIR mentions " it has been further learnt that rentals in respect of aforesaid land have been processed in revenue extracts by Shri Girdhar Kumar, the then Naib Tehsildar in criminal conspiracy with (1) Major Sanjay Jain (10 JAKLI), (2) M L Manhas, SDO, DESO, Rajouri, (3) Giridhar Kumar Naib Tehsildar, Noshewara and (4) Kamal Singh". Assuming that FIR does not attribute exact role of the petitioner and the same is permissible, yet it reflects on the casual attitude of the respondent no.1 by mentioning that petitioner entered into criminal conspiracy with himself. Registration of FIR is a very serious issue and, if untrue, it, in addition to assassination of character and mental peace of accused, results in irreparable loss and injury to all the people connected/related to him. Further submitted that petitioner is a senior citizen and is suffering from heart disease and other ailments. Respondent no. 2, in connivance with respondent no. 1 has rather caused immense harm to the petitioner by virtue of impugned FIR.

x) That in the light of aforesaid facts, it transpires that the petitioner has never committed any criminal misconduct as defined under the Prevention of Corruption Act or forgery under the Ranbir Penal Code as the revenue record was prepared by Tehsildar concerned, the petitioner and other officials in terms of Standing Order under Land Revenue Act.

CRMC No.89/2017

4. Through the medium of instant petition, petitioner-Patwari inter alia seeks quashing of FIR No.RC:004 2017 A001 dated 31.01.2017, registered by the respondent against the petitioner and other persons for commission of offences under Sections 5(2) R/W 5(1)(d) of the J&K Prevention of Corruption Act and under Sections 467, 468, 471, 420 and 120-B RPC.

5. The brief facts of the case are that one Chottu Ram, S/o Sh. Satpal R/o Dhanika, Tehsil Nowshera at present 167/13 Laxmi Nagar Muthi, Tehsil and District Jammu filed a false, frivolous and malicious complaint u/s 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and Sections 467, 468, 470, 471 and 120-B RPC against the petitioner and titled Chottu Ram Vs Girdhan Lal and others before Learned Special Judge (Anti-Corruption), Jammu on 24-10-2011 which was immediately forwarded in original on same day to police of Police Station, State Vigilance Organization Jammu by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Anti-Corruption), Jammu with a direction for necessary action under rules. The said Chottu Ram in the complaint has leveled baseless allegations of criminal conspiracy to grab the rental compensation amount and preparation of false revenue records. The complainant/Chottu Ram in para No. 5, claims that Khasra Nos.1761, 1778, 1777, 1589, 1590, 1591, 1598, 1573, 2204, 2206, 2207, 2211, 2212, 2053, 2054, 2055, 2056, 2068, 2069, 2070, 2071 is in occupation of Pakistan. In this context it is submitted that Jamabandi, Kharif 1995-96 clearly depicts that the land falling in these Khasra numbers is in occupation of Indian Army and situated in Village Khamba, Tehsil Nowshera District Rajouri. In the year 1998, the petitioner was posted as Patwari, Khamba Tehsil Nowshera District Rajouri. The Army authorities for the defence purposes identified the land at different Mohra in Tehsil Nowshera and the Army authorities approached the Defence Estate Officer, Udhampur for the said purpose and the Defence Estate Officer Udhampur approached the Tehsildar Nowshera for the joint inspection of the land, situated at village Khamba and the Tehsildar, Nowshera directed one Girdhar Kumar S/o Sain Dass, R/o H.No.26, Ward No.3, Tehsil Nowshera District Rajouri for joint inspection of the land situated at Khamba. On 29th July, 1998, Girdhar Kumar along with Defence Estates Officer and Army authorities conducted the joint inspection of the land measuring 334 Kanals 15 Marlas (194 Kanal-18 Marlas of class-IInd and 139 Kanals-17Marlas of class-IIIrd) under lying Khasra Nos.1587 to 1591, 1573, 1761, 1777, 1778, 2053 to 2056, 2068 to 2071, 2204, 2206, 2207, 2208, 2211, 2212 and 1598 and after that the board so constituted recommended the proposal for hiring of the land. The board so constituted recommended the proposal on 02.09.1998. The above-mentioned land measuring 334 Kanal-15 Marlas underlying various Khasra Nos as mentioned above was allotted Case No. JKR/284/HRG. The petitioner retired on 26th April, 2005 and is a respectable and law abiding citizen of the State and had never tampered any revenue document during service tenure. The complainant/Chottu Ram in order to mentally harass and blackmail the petitioner filed a complaint on false and concocted facts. It is further stated that the said complainant has made serious allegations of misappropriation of rent. In this regard, it is submitted that even the father of the complainant has received the rent from the Army authorities till the year 2003 and thereafter on the complaint of the complainant the Army authorities stopped the payment of the rent to the land owners, which caused mental harassment and torture to the needy land owners and poor people of village Khamba. The petitioner aggrieved of the complaint filed by the complainant/Chottu Ram under Sections (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and Sections 467, 468, 470, 471, 120-B RPC and the order passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge (Anti- Corruption) Jammu dated 24.10.2011 has been left with no option but to approach this court in exercise of its inherent powers and all other enabling provisions to quash the complaint and order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, (Anti-Corruption), Jammu whereby the police of Police Station State Vigilance Organization had been directed to take necessary action under rules. The petitioner feeling aggrieved of the complaint, assailed the same before this Court along with aforesaid Girdhar Kumar, through petition under section 561-A Cr.P.C. No.354/12 titled Girdhar Kumar & anr. Vs State of J&K & Ors and this Court, vide its order dated 20.03.2013 was pleased to restrain the respondents from proceeding further in the complaint pending before the Court of Special Judge Anti Corruption Jammu at the behest of the complainant Chottu Ram. Notwithstanding the passing of the order dated 20.03.2013 by the Honble Court restraining the Police of Police Station State Vigilance Organization, Jammu and Chottu Ram S/o Sh.Sat Pal, R/o Dhanika, Tehsil Nowshera at present 167/13 Laxmi Nagar Muthi, Tehsil and District Jammu, from proceeding further in the complaint pending before the Court of Special Judge Anti Corruption Jammu, an F.I.R No. RC:0042017A001 dated 31.01.2017 came to be registered by respondent No.1 against the petitioner and two other persons and some unknown and others for commission of offences under section 5 (2) r/w 5(1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and 467, 468, 471, 420, 120-B RPC regarding the same controversy leading to filing of the above said petition under Section 561- A no. 354/2012, without any lawful justification in total departure to the settled position of law by the Honble Supreme Court from time to time, that there can be no second FIR regarding same cognizable offence, incident or occurrence. Hence, this petition.

6. The petitioner feeling aggrieved of the registration of the FIR against him by respondent has challenged the same on the same grounds, which have been taken in previous petitions.

7. The impugned FIR reads as under:

"It has been reliably learnt that Shri R. S. Chanderwanshi, the then Sub Divisional Defence Estate Officer Rajouri, Sh. Darshan Kumar, the then Patwari Nowshera, Village Khamba, Shri Rajesh Kumar and other unknown persons entered into criminal conspiracy during 2000, in pursuance of the said criminal conspiracy different land was shown on rent to the army authorities, which in fact is situated in POK (Pak Occupied Kashmir). The board of officers, comprising of 1 Army Officer, Estate Officer and representative of revenue department disbursed rentals to the persons on the basis of false/forged documents, thereby, causing wrongful loss to the government exchequer with corresponding wrongful gain to the beneficiaries to the tune of Rs. 06 lakhs (approx) in respect of land measuring 122 kanals 18marlas, (JKR/283/GRG).

It has further been learnt that Army acquires land on rent from civilians. The rent is paid after convened of Board, comprising of 1 army Officer, 0fficer from Defence Estate and 1 Officer of revenue department, approves the rent after physically verifying the land but in this matter, the Board of Officers in criminal conspiracy with each other wrongly verified that the land was acquired by the army, whereas the same is situated in POK.

It has further been learnt that in the instant case, board proceedings were convened in year 2000 comprising of 1 Army officer including Shri R.S.Chanderwanshi, the then (DESO Rajouri) and Sh. Darshan Kumar the then Patwari Noshewara, and in pursuant thereto, land falling under Khasra Nos.3000 (03Kanal 10marlas), 3035 (111kanal 16marlas), 3041(15marlas), 3045(6 kanal 17 marlas), total 122 kanals 18marlas was declared to be under the occupation of the Defence Forces. Accordingly, rental compensation to the tune of Rs.4,99,474/-has been disbursed to one Rajesh Kumar and others in Case No. JKR/283/HRG land measuring 122 kanal 18 marlas, village. Khamba, Teshil Nowshera has been obtained by the said person through Office of the Defence Estate Officer Northern Command Udhampur.

It has also been learnt that as per Jamabandhi register for the year 1969-70 of the land in question, Khasra Nos. 3000, 335, 3041 and 3045 are under the occupation of Maqbooza Pakistan, but rents are being paid by the Defence Estate to the alleged owner.

Regular case is therefore, registered and investigation entrusted to Inspector Sukhwinder Singh, CBI, ACB, Jammu."

CRMC No.546/2017

8. In the instant petition filed under Section 561-A Cr.P.C., the petitioners who are beneficiaries of land rent inter alia seek quashing of FIR No.RC0042016A0008 dated 03.11.2016, under Sections 5(2) and 5(1)(d) of the J&K Prevention of Corruption Act and Sections 467, 468, 471, 420,120-B RPC, registered by the respondent qua the petitioners.

They have challenged the FIR impugned on the same grounds, which have been mentioned in first petition; Contents of FIR is also same, the detail of which has already been given above.

CRMC No.523/2017

9. Through the medium of the instant petition, petitioner Rattan Singh inter alia seeks quashing of FIR No.RC0042016A0008 dated 03.11.2016 for the commission of offences under Section 5(2) and 5(1)(d) of the J&K Prevention of Corruption Act and Sections 467, 468, 471, 420, 120-B RPC, registered by the respondent on 3rd of November, 2016 qua the petitioner.

Petitioner has stated that he apprehends that he may be involved in FIR. He has also taken similar grounds those have been taken in other petitions.

10. The respondent/CBI has filed objections wherein it has been stated that no fundamental or statutory rights of the petitioners have been violated, therefore, the petitioners cannot invoke the extraordinary writ jurisdiction of this Court. The petition deserves dismissal. It is further stated that the petitioners have not come before this Court with clean hands and have mis-stated and misrepresented the facts before this Court and as such, petition deserves dismissal. It is further stated that as per Jamabandi for the year 1969-70, land in question exists in Pakistan, but petitioners after manipulating the revenue records in connivance with Girdhar Kumar, the then Naib Tehsildar, Nowshera, have shown the said land to be existing under occupation of Army on the Indian side. Thereafter, they misrepresented the Honble court and obtained directions for constituting a Board, in which Shri Girdhar Kumar, the then Naib Tehsildar was one of the members. Thereafter, the rental compensation was drawn by Shri Narinder Pal Singh from DC Office, Rajouri. Ultimately, both S/Shri Girdhar Kumar and Honhar Bakshi purchased a big chunk of the said land and now their family members are drawing the rental compensation for the said land. It is further stated that all the petitioners are beneficiaries and they are receiving the rental compensation of the said land. Petitioners were called in CBI Office only once to record their statements. It is further submitted that as per Jamabandi for the year 1969-70, Khasra Nos. 1497 1498, 1499, 1500, 1501, 1503, 1504, 1505, 1506, 1507, 1508, 1509, 1510, 1511, 1512, 1512/1, 1513, 1513/1 and 1514 shows as "MAKBUZA PAKISTAN" i.e., the land exists in Pakistan, but by manipulating the revenue record, it has been shown on the Indian Side under the occupation of Indian Army. That a separate case for land compensation pertaining to another piece of land was filed and it does not attract the investigation of this case. It is further submitted that on the directions of court, board was constituted for inspection of site, in which, Major Sanjay Jain of 10 JAKLI was the Presiding Officer and S/Shri M. L. Manhas, ADO, Defence Estates, Rajouri and Girdhar Kumar, the then Naib Tehsildar, Nowshera were the members. During investigation, it is revealed Shri Girdhar Kumar, the then Naib Tehsildar, Nowshera (representative from revenue) identified the land on the spot to be in the possession of Army on Indian side, before board constituted vide Communication No.Od/390 dated 21.08.2017 of Tehsildar Nowshera clearly speaks that the land was identified by the Army which is not possible, as they are not revenue expert, but he prepared his report on the basis of report of Army official, which shows that the report is prepared with mala fide intention and against the factual position. It is further submitted that the allegations made in the FIR corroborate the commission of offence u/S 120-B, 420, 467, 468, 471 RPC and 5 (2) r/w 5(1) (d) of J & K PC Act, Samvat 2006.

CRMC No.354/2012

11. Through the medium of the instant petition filed under Section 561- A Cr.P.C., petitioners- Naib Tehsildar and Patwari inter alia seek quashing of the complaint under Sections 5(2) of the J&K Prevention of Corruption Act and 467, 468, 470, 471,120-B RPC titled Chottu Ram vs Girdhan Lal and others pending before Police Station Vigilance Organization Jammu. Petitioners have taken all grounds which have been taken in previous petitions.

12. Respondent No.1 has filed the status report wherein it has been stated that respondent No.2 Sh. Chhotu Ram Choudhary filed a complaint before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Anticorruption Jammu against the petitioner and others for registration of FIR u/s 5 (2) J&K Prevention of Corruption Act and section 467, 468, 471 and 120-B RPC in Police Station Vigilance Organization, Jammu. The said complaint on 24.01.2011 was forwarded to SSP Vigilance Organization Jammu for necessary action under rules. On receipt of the said complaint from the learned Court the same was sent to Commissioner of Vigilance, who vide order No.SVO-Veri-PR-19/2011-1565-66/J dated 10.12.2011 ordered verification into the matter and the same was entrusted to Sh. H. K. Nazar, Dy. SP for doing the needful. During the course of verification the enquiry officer obtained the records from the concerned quarters as also the reports from Tehsildar Nowshera which reveal that as per Jamabandhi register 1969-70, the Khasra Nos. 1761, 1778, 1777, 1589, 1590, 1591, 1598, 1573, 1587, 1588, 2204, 2206, 2207, 2208, 2211, 2212, 2053, 2054, 2055, 2056, 2068, 2069 2070, 2071 and 3000, 3035, 3041 and 3045 are under the occupation of Pakistan (Maqbooza) Pakistan as reported by the Tehsildar Nowshera. Further from the year 1995-96 onwards the said khasra Nos have been shown under the occupation of Indian Army for which the rent compensation w.e.f. 1972 to 31.03.2003 has been paid by the defence authorities to the two Attorney Holders amounting to Rs.21,24,853/-on the basis of documents issued by the revenue authorities prepared during the year 1998 and 2000. Thereafter, the said rent has been stopped by the defence authorities since 31.03.2003. During the course of verification it has been found that the said rent of Rs.21,24,853/-has been paid to the two Attorney holders directly by Defence Estate officers instead through Deputy Commissioner, Rajouri. Verification has also revealed that one of the attorney holder as well as the owner of said portion of land is not traceable. The attorney holder of other portion of land is a close kin of the applicant and the documents have been witnessed by son of the applicant. During the course of verification the statement of said attorney holder has been recorded who deposed that the documents were got signed from him by revenue official for loan purposes and he does not know anything about the land in question/owners of said land. He has been given only Rs.50,000/- and rest amount has been taken by revenue officials.

13. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the case file and laws on the subject.

14. In 2008 (3) SCC 753 [LQ/SC/2008/200] in case titled Som Mittal v. Govt. of Karnataka, it has been held as under:-

"(10) In a catena of decisions this Court has deprecated the interference by the High Court in exercise of its inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code in a routine manner. It has been consistently held that the power under Section 482 must be exercised sparingly, with circumspection and in rarest of rare cases. Exercise of inherent power under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is not the rule but it is an exception. The exception is applied only when it is brought to the notice of the Court that grave miscarriage of justice would be committed if the trial is allowed to proceed where the accused would be harassed unnecessarily if the trial is allowed to linger when prima facie it appears to Court that the trial would likely to be ended in acquittal. In other words, the inherent power of the Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure can be invoked by the High Court either to prevent abuse of process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice.

(11) This Court, in a catena of decisions, consistently gave a note of caution that inherent power of quashing a criminal proceeding should be exercised very sparingly and with circumspection and that too in the rarest of rare cases. This Court also held that the High Court will not be justified in embarking upon an inquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the F.I.R. or the complaint and that the extra-ordinary or inherent powers do not confer an arbitrary jurisdiction on the court to act according to its whims and caprice.

(12) We now refer to a few decisions of this Court deprecating the exercise of extra ordinary or inherent powers by the High Court according to its whims and caprice.

(13) In State of Bihar v. J.A.C. Saldanha (1980) 1 SCC 554 [LQ/SC/1979/450] this Court pointed out at SCC p. 574:

The High Court in exercise of the extraordinary jurisdiction committed a grave error by making observations on seriously disputed questions of facts taking its cue from affidavits which in such a situation would hardly provide any reliable material. In our opinion the High Court was clearly in error in giving the direction virtually amounting to a mandamus to close the case before the investigation is complete. We say no more.

(14) In Hazari Lal Gupta v. Rameshwar Prasad (1972) 1 SCC 452 [LQ/SC/1971/629] this Court at SCC p. 455 pointed out:

In exercising jurisdiction under Section 561-A of the Criminal Procedure Code, the High Court can quash proceedings if there is no legal evidence or if there is any impediment to the institution or continuance of proceedings but the High Court does not ordinarily inquire as to whether the evidence is reliable or not. Where again, investigation into the circumstances of an alleged cognizable offence is carried on under the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code, the High Court does not interfere with such investigation because it would then be the impeding investigation and jurisdiction of statutory authorities to exercise power in accordance with the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code.

(15) In Jehan Singh v. Delhi Administration (1974) 4 SCC 522 [LQ/SC/1974/127] the application filed by the accused under Section 561-A of the old Code for quashing the investigation was dismissed as being premature and incompetent on the finding that prima facie, the allegations in the FIR, if assumed to be correct, constitute a cognizable offence.

(16) In Kurukshetra University v. State of Haryana (1977) 4 SCC 451 [LQ/SC/1977/148] , this Court pointed out:

It surprises us in the extreme that the High Court thought that in the exercise of its inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, it could quash a first information report. The police had not even commenced investigation into the complaint filed by the Warden of the University and no proceeding at all was pending in any court in pursuance of the FIR. It ought to be realized that inherent powers do not confer an arbitrary jurisdiction on the High Court to act according to whim or caprice. That statutory power has to be exercised sparingly, with circumspection and in the rarest of rare cases.(emphasis supplied)

(17) In State of Bihar v. Murad Ali Khan (1988) 4 SCC 655 [LQ/SC/1988/527] this Court held that the jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code has to be exercised sparingly and with circumspection and has given the working that in exercising that jurisdiction, the High Court should not embark upon an enquiry whether the allegations in the complaint are likely to be established by evidence or not."

15. In present case, from bare perusal of allegations made in impugned FIRs, it is evident that a deep rooted conspiracy was hatched by revenue officers, Army officers and private persons to swindle the rent of land falling under various khasra numbers, measuring 285 kanals 9 marlas mentioned in FIR No.RC004 2016 A0008/2016 and land measuring 122 kanals 18 marlas detail of which has been given in FIR No.RC004 2017 A001/2016; in furtherance to said conspiracy, false reports were prepared stating that land is under the occupation of defence forces, whereas, entries contained in JAMABANDI for the year 1969-70 reveals that land was under the occupation of Pakistan (Maqbooza Pakistan ); and on the basis of these false reports rent compensation were received by various persons.

16. There are further allegations that petitioner Girdhar Kumar, the then Naib Tehsildar, Nowshera, after manipulating the revenue records shown the disputed land to be existing under occupation of Army on the Indian side; thereafter, they misrepresented this court and obtained directions for constituting a Board; in board Major Sanjay Jain of 10 JAKLI was the Presiding Officer and S/Shri M. L. Manhas, ADO, Defence Estates, Rajouri and Girdhar Kumar, the then Naib Tehsildar, Nowshera were the members. During investigation, it has further been revealed Shri Girdhar Kumar, the then Naib Tehsildar, Nowshera (representative from revenue) identified the land on the spot to be in the possession of Army on Indian side; the land was not identified by any revenue officer, but by army; thereafter, Girdhar Kumar and one Honhar Bakshi purchased a big chunk of the said land and now their family members are drawing the rental compensation for the said land.

17. Similarly in other FIR No.RC004 2017 A001/2016, there are further allegations that R. S. Chanderwanshi, the then Sub Divisional Defence Estate Officer Rajouri, Sh. Darshan Kumar, the then Patwari Nowshera, Village Khamba, Shri Rajesh Kumar and other unknown persons entered into criminal conspiracy during 2000, in pursuance of the said criminal conspiracy different land was shown on rent to the army authorities, which in fact is situated in POK (Pak Occupied Kashmir). The board of officers, comprising of 1 Army Officer, Estate Officer and representative of revenue department disbursed rentals to the persons on the basis of false/forged documents.

18. From bare perusal of these allegations, it is evident that cases for cognizable offences have been made out.

19. A Constitution Bench of Supreme Court in Lalita Kumari vs State of U.P. (2014) 2 SCC 1 [LQ/SC/2013/1244] , has held that whenever a police officer receives a complaint which discloses the commission of a cognizable offence, he is duty bound to register an FIR thereon. So it is evident from this law that FIR is registered in cognizable case, then Police has statutory duty to conduct the investigation in cognizable offences.

20. First ground taken is that the mandate of Section 6 and Section 6-A of Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 has not been adhered to in letter and spirit by respondent no.1 while registering the FIRs as no consent has been obtained by respondent no.1 from the State Government before registration of impugned FIRs.

21. Section 6 and 6- A ofread as under:-

"6. Consent of State Government to exercise of powers and jurisdiction.Nothing contained in section 5 shall be deemed to enable any member of the Delhi Special Police Establishment to exercise powers and jurisdiction in any area in 2 [a State, not being a Union territory or railway area], without the consent of the Government of that State.

[6A. Approval of Central Government to conduct, inquiry or investigation. (1) The Delhi Special Police Establishment shall not conduct any inquiry or investigation into any offence alleged to have been committed under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (49 of 1988) except with the previous approval of the Central Government where such allegation relates to (a) the employees of the Central Government of the level of Joint Secretary and above; and (b) such officers as are appointed by the Central Government in corporations established by or under any Central Act, Government companies, societies and local authorities owned or controlled by that Government. (2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), no such approval shall be necessary for cases involving arrest of a person on the spot on the charge of accepting or attempting to accept any gratification other than legal remuneration referred to in clause (c) of the Explanation to section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988."

22. First argument that police under Act cannot investigate without consent of State Govt., is not tenable as Govt. of Jammu & Kashmir, way back on 7th may 1958 has given consent to Delhi Special Police Establishment for exercising the power and jurisdiction in the State under various sections of Ranbir Penal Code and offences under prevention of corruption Act (State Act).

23. A Constitution Bench of Supreme Court in Dr. Subramanian Swamy vs Director, CBI & Anr, (2014) 8 SCC 682 [LQ/SC/2014/529] , which has struck down Section 6A of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 (DSPE). The relevant para of Judgement reads as under:-

"98. In view of our foregoing discussion, we hold that Section 6- A(1), which requires approval of the Central Government to conduct any inquiry or investigation into any offence alleged to have been committed under the PC Act, 1988 where such allegation relates to (a) the employees of the Central Government of the level of Joint Secretary and above and (b) such officers as are appointed by the Central Government in corporations established by or under any Central Act, government companies, societies and local authorities owned or controlled by the Government, is invalid and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. As a necessary corollary, the provision contained in Section 26 (c) of the45 of 2003 to that extent is also declared invalid."

24. Further, Govt. of India vide order dated 01.04.1964 in exercise of power conferred by sub section 1 of section 5 of DSPE Act has extended the powers and jurisdiction of memberhs of Act for investigation of certain offences under RPC and offences under prevention of corruption Act (State Act).

25. In 2000 Cr.LJ 682 in case titled Sushil Kumar Khajuria and ors. Vs. State , this court after relying 1987 (2) CRIMES 741 [LQ/JKHC/1987/64] in case titled H.N Tripathi v. State, has already settled the issues, it has been held that under section 6 of Act, members of DSPE Act has power to investigate the offences specified in notification can produce challan before competent court of law.

26. Next argument of counsel for petitioners is that CBI has cited source information on the basis of which the F.I.R impugned has been registered by him; but CBI has suppressed the factum of the complaint filed by respondent no.2 thereby sending a definite impression that respondent no.2 has exercised his discretion in registration of impugned FIR in a mala fide manner. This argument does not hold well, because any person, whether he is aggrieved person or not, can set criminal law in motion.

27. Another argument of counsel for petitioners is that revenue entries (Jamabandi of 1995) reflecting correct ground situation have remained unchallenged till date and nothing has been brought forth by respondent no.1 to demonstrate that the said revenue entries have either been set aside or are a matter under adjudication before any competent court. This argument is also not tenable, because there is specific allegation that this revenue entry of (Jamabandi of 1995) has been forged by revenue officer thereby showing that land in question is situated within Indian territory, whereas in fact as per old revenue entry of JAMABANDI for the year 1969-70 would reveal that land was under the occupation of Pakistan (Maqbooza Pakistan).

28. Another foremost argument of counsel for petitioners is that right from the date of filing of OWP No. 592/1994 by Billo Devi, Kamal Singh and Rattan Singh in 1994 till Supreme Court adjudicated the SLP 478/2001, the UOI has taken defense and filed affidavit that land in question is in forwarded defended localities on the LOC, has been lying vacant unutilized for any purpose due to constant hazard of Pakistan army firing from across LOC , so it has been proved that land in question is towards Indian side and not in Pakistan side. This argument is not tenable on two grounds, because as per CBI, revenue officer had already tampered with revenue entries; the old Jamabandi for the year 1969-70 would reveals that land was under the occupation of Pakistan (Maqbooza Pakistan); and revenue officer prepared the new forged Jamabandi in 1995 and on basis of this forged documents they laid their claim before courts; secondly from the perusal of pleadings and defense of UOI in litigation up to Apex court, it is evident that, there was no dispute with regard to fact as to whether land for which rent was claimed was falling in Indian territory or Pakistan territory.

29. Last argument is that with same subject challan is already pending before Additional Session Judge Rajouri in FIR no.01/2004 of VOJ. This argument also does not hold good, because from perusal of copy of challan, it would reveal that case is pertaining to different khasra numbers. Rests of grounds taken are factual in nature, which cannot be considered in these petitions.

30. Law with regard to quashment of FIR can be summarized that the High Court should be extremely cautious and loathe in interfering with the investigation and/or trial of criminal cases and should not stall the investigation and/or prosecution; court can interfere only when it comes to conclusion beyond any manner of doubt that the FIR does not disclose commission of any offence or that the allegations contained in the FIR do not constitute any cognizable offence or that the prosecution is barred by law or the High Court is convinced that it is necessary to interfere to prevent abuse of the process of the court.

31. In dealing with such cases, the High Court has to bear in mind that judicial intervention at the threshold of the legal process initiated against a person accused of committing offence is highly detrimental to the larger public and societal interest. The people and the society have a legitimate expectation that those committing offences either against an individual or the society are expeditiously brought to trial and, if found guilty, adequately punished. Therefore, while deciding a petition filed for quashing the FIR or complaint or restraining the competent authority from investigating the allegations contained in the FIR or complaint or for stalling the trial of the case, the High Court should be extremely careful and circumspect.

32. If the allegations contained in the FIR or complaint discloses commission of some crime, then the High Court must keep its hands off and allow the investigating agency to complete the investigation, because once FIR is lodged for commission of cognizable offence, it becomes statutory duty of investigation agency to inquire about truthfulness of allegation levelled in FIR. By mere lodging of FIR, it does not amount that case has been proved. Investigation may culminate into filing of charge sheet for commission of offence or may amount to filing of closure report stating that no offence has been proved. But quashing the FIR at initial stage may amount to killing of unborn child. It is not the case of petitioners that there is specific legal bar engrafted in any law for lodging FIR.

33. In view of above discussion, I am of the considered opinion that there is no merit in CRMC No.622/2016, CRMC No.89/2017, CRMC No.546/2017, and CRMC No.523/2017, and these are accordingly dismissed.

34. So far as CRMC No.354/2012 is concerned, it is evident that till today FIR has not been registered by Vigilance organization on the order of Additional Session Judge Anti Corruption, Jammu on the complaint filed by respondent no.2. Therefore, this petition is premature and is accordingly dismissed.