JAMMU, Nov 10: The High Court has quashed the corruption charges framed against Farzana Ara Naqashbandi, former Senior Town Planner of Jammu Municipal Corporation, observing that the prosecution and trial court adopted a mechanical and legally unsustainable approach while framing charges.
Justice Rajesh Sekhri, while pronouncing judgment in a petition filed under Section 482 CrPC, held that the material collected by the Anti-Corruption Bureau did not disclose any prima facie case of criminal misconduct or conspiracy against the petitioner, who had merely forwarded a building permission file in accordance with municipal procedure.
The case arose from an FIR registered by ACB alleging that She, as Senior Town Planner, had recommended a building permission for a commercial-cum-residential structure on land allegedly belonging to Temple Shri Raghunath Ji Maharaj, ignoring objections from revenue officials.
The prosecution claimed that her recommendation facilitated illegal sanctioning of the building plan by then Municipal Commissioner Kiran Wattal.
However, the High Court noted that the lease deeds of the property were duly registered in 1986 and the beneficiaries had already been declared legal heirs through a civil court decree of 2013.
The Court also cited municipal records which clarified that, as per ease-of-doing-business guidelines, cases with less than 20,000 sq. ft floor area were not required to be referred to the UTEIC Committee, making the petitioner’s recommendation procedurally correct.
Court further observed that the trial court embarked upon an unchartered territory and failed to appreciate the controversy in its correct perspective, adding that mere forwarding of a file by a subordinate officer, without any evidence of mala fide intent or illegal gratification, cannot amount to criminal misconduct.
The Court further pointed out that co-accused Municipal Commissioner Kiran Wattal had already been discharged in the same case by a previous High Court order, which had attained finality, yet the trial court proceeded mechanically against the petitioner.
High Court added that the prosecution material, even if taken at its face value, does not disclose any offence & the continuation of proceedings would amount to abuse of process of law & Set aside the order of the Special Judge, Anti-Corruption, dated October 14, 2023.
As a result, the High Court allowed the petition, quashed the charge order, and discharged the petitioner from all allegations.
|