Srinagar, May 10: Justice Shahzad Azeem in CRMC No. 70/2018 titled Aijaz Hussain Sahaf versus State of JK and Others, dismissed a petition seeking quashing of a Crime Branch FIR registered against a former Executive Engineer accused of tampering with his service records to alter his date of birth and allegedly extend his tenure in government service.
The petition had sought quashing of FIR No. 09/2015 registered at Police Station Crime Branch, Kashmir under Sections 420, 467, 468 and 471 of the Ranbir Penal Code. According to the prosecution case detailed in the judgment, the petitioner was accused of manipulating the first page of his service book by changing his date of birth from August 28, 1955 to August 28, 1958.
The matter first came to the attention of the Crime Branch through a complaint alleging tampering of official service records while the petitioner was serving as Executive Engineer in the Irrigation and Flood Control Department.
A preliminary verification conducted by the Crime Branch was initially closed as “not proved.” However, the Senior Superintendent of Police, Crime Branch, subsequently recommended a Departmental Inquiry into the allegations & thereafter, on directions of Commissioner-Secretary of the PHE/Irrigation and Flood Control Department departmental inquiry was conducted, after which an order dated July 16, 2012 directed the petitioner to restore his original date of birth August 28, 1955 in the service records.
The petitioner challenged the departmental action before the High Court through SWP No. 1448/2012, following which the court permitted the competent authority to conduct a proper inquiry under rules.
According to the judgment, a fresh inquiry later concluded that the petitioner had indeed tampered with his service records and altered his date of birth from 1955 to 1958.
Thereafter, the Under Secretary to the Government referred the matter along with supporting material to the Crime Branch on February 16, 2015 for appropriate legal action, leading to registration of the FIR and commencement of investigation.
Before the High Court, the petitioner argued that the FIR was motivated and intended only to harass him. He further contended that the Under Secretary had no authority to lodge the complaint and argued that since the Crime Branch had earlier closed its preliminary verification, a second FIR on the same facts was legally impermissible.
The petitioner also relied upon earlier writ proceedings in which his compulsory retirement had been quashed. Rejecting the arguments, the High Court held that closure of a preliminary verification did not amount to a judicial closure report and could not prevent registration of an FIR if subsequent material disclosed commission of cognizable offences.
Justice Azeem observed that the earlier verification had merely recommended departmental inquiry and was not conclusive in nature. The court noted that during investigation, the Crime Branch collected extensive documentary and oral evidence, including matriculation certificates, school admission and withdrawal registers, BOSE verification records and service-book documents.
The judgment added that the Jammu and Kashmir Board of School Education, through a communication dated May 18, 2015, authenticated the petitioner’s date of birth as August 28, 1955. The court also referred to statements of several witnesses, including officials from the Industries and Commerce Department, PHE and Irrigation & Flood Control Department, as well as school authorities. A forensic science laboratory report dated July 18, 2014 was described by the court as the “most crucial piece of evidence,” as it reportedly confirmed that the original entry in the service records reflected the date of birth as August 28, 1955 and indicated tampering.
The High Court further observed that records relating to the petitioner’s elder brother also raised doubts over the altered date of birth, noting that the petitioner appeared only four months younger than his elder sibling if the changed date was accepted.
Holding that the material collected during investigation prima facie disclosed commission of cognizable offences, the court said the High Court, while exercising inherent powers under Section 561-A CrPC, could not conduct a “mini trial” or reappreciate evidence.
Relying on recent Supreme Court precedents including Vinod Kumar Pandey versus Seesh Ram Saini and Pradeep Nirankarnath Sharma versus State of Gujarat, the court reiterated that registration of FIR becomes mandatory once information discloses commission of a cognizable offence.
The court also clarified that exoneration or findings in disciplinary proceedings do not automatically justify quashing of criminal proceedings, which operate on a different standard of proof. Finding no abuse of process or legal infirmity warranting interference, the High Court dismissed the petition and vacated interim directions, permitting the investigating agency to proceed further in accordance with law.
|