AJAY KUMAR AGARWAL Vs. UNION TERRITORY OF JK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A short but an important question of vital importance has arisen for determination in this petition.

(2.) The question has arisen out of following factual matrix. The Deputy Inspector General of Police, South Kashmir, Anantnag, received a letter dtd. 13/5/2019, to the effect that an office in the name of "Host and Finance" is being run at K.P. Road opposite Car Plaza by the petitioner, who is involved in instituting fake complaints in different courts of District Anantnag and Kulgam, against some persons residing outside the Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir. In the letter, it was alleged that petitioner had established an office and was exploiting his employees as a front for filing these false complaints. On the basis of these false and frivolous complaints, the petitioner would obtain bailable warrants for using them for extortion of money from the intended targets. On the basis of this information, FIR. No. 69/2019 was registered at Police Station Saddar, Anantnag, under Sec. 420, 467 and 468 RPC. Initially the investigation was conducted by the In-charge of the Police Station concerned, but later on Special Investigation Team (SIT) headed by Deputy Superintendent of Police was constituted. Upon the completion of investigation, final report was laid by the SIT before the competent court of jurisdiction on 14/9/2021. It appears that while the trial was pending before the court, In-charge Police Station Saddar, Anantnag, filed an application before the competent Authority i.e., Chief Judicial Magistrate, Anantnag, pleading therein that some new facts had surfaced and, therefore, the police had embarked upon further investigation in FIR No. 69/2019 in terms of Sec. 173 (8) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

(3.) While the further investigation in the matter was going on, the petitioner claims to have approached the Investigating Officer with a request to consider some documentary evidence in his possession, which, as per the petitioner, was relevant and germane to arriving at the truth. The petitioner claims to have projected before the Investigating Officer that he is not involved in instituting any false complaint for extortion of money rather the petitioner's company has filed cases only against the persons, who were made the payments through bank transfers. The grievance of the petitioner as projected in this petition is that the refusal of the Investigating Officer to receive and consider the documentary evidence in his possession has deprived the petitioner of his right to prove his innocence before the Investigating Officer. Arguments.