Jammu, March 16: Justice Javed Iqbal Wani quashed the FIR NO 25/2019 in Disproportionate Assets Case registered by ACB Jammu against Bhupinder Singh Dua, then MD SICOP.

Justice Javed Iqabl Wani after hearing Sr. Adv Sunil Sethi with Adv Parimoksh Seth for the petitioner, observed that the perusal of the CD file further tends to show that in the impugned FIR, the respondents have included golden/silver jewellery and the amount of cash, having been seized admittedly from the ground floor of the house of the petitioner, which house stands scrutinized and investigated into by the respondents in earlier FIR 10/1997.

Perusal of the record would further reveal that in earlier FIR 10/1997, the respondents have had brought under investigation the factories belonging to the relatives of the petitioner and had verified the same, having found none of them belonging to the petitioner.

Although in the impugned FIR, nine factories are alleged to be belonging to the petitioner, however, perusal of the CD reveals that they said allegation and assertion has not been substantiated by the investigating agency.

The Petitioner submitted that there has been a judicial separation between him and his wife in 1997, has not been disputed or else denied by the respondents that whatever recoveries have been made were from the floor the petitioners wife is living.

Perusal of the CD file reveals that petitioner and his other family members have accounted for the jewellery and cash recovered appropriately and satisfactorily and owing to that, the respondents, therefore, have failed to make any headway in the investigation of the case and to substantiate the allegations levelled against the petitioner much less the offenses alleged to have been committed by him as covered in the impugned FIR 7 other issues related to.

This Court cannot overlook the fact that the respondents in the earlier FIR 10/1997 and the present impugned FIR, have levelled broad allegations viz-a-viz the same and similar assets against petitioner as noticed in the preceding paras.

The Court observed that another aspect of the matter as well cannot be ignored by this Court, though having been noticed in the preceding paras, being registration and closure of earlier FIR 10/1997 supra against the petitioner under the Act of 2006, as also FIR 23/2019 having been quashed by this Court again registered under the provisions of Act of 2006.

The impugned FIR is 3rd in succession registered by the respondent against the petitioner and broadly with the same and similar allegations against the petitioner.

The law is no more resintegra that registration of successive FIRs in connection with same or connected cognizable offenses have been held to be violative of Article 21 of the constitution.

The ends of justice are higher than the ends of mere law, though justice has got to be administered according to the laws made by the legislature.

The submissions made by counsel for the respondents inasmuch as judgements cited in support of the said submissions do not lend any support to the case of the respondent and by no sense of imagination, can said to be potent enough to dislodge the case set up by the petitioner.

Accordingly, petition is allowed and impugned FIR is quashed.