MUBASSIR LATIFI Vs. STATE OF J & K

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, namely, Mubassir Latifi S/o Abdul Latif Balwan R/o Chinar Enclave, Sidhra, Jammu, has filed the instant petition under Sec. 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure whereby he has craved the indulgence of this Court in quashing, FIR No.08 of 2016 dated 09.03.2016 registered against him by respondent No.2, Vigilance Organization, Jammu, through its Sr. Superintendent of Police for the commission of offence under Sec. 5(1)(d) read with Sec. 5(2) of the J & K Prevention of Corruption Act Samvat, 2006 and 120-B of the RPC as also the proceedings being conducted in the said FIR. 1 in the year 1972 till 1999. In the year Kharief 2005, land to the tune of 01 Kanal 18 Marlas under Khasra No. 119 min has been recorded in the name of Abdul Latief Balwan-the father of the petitioner. As per the scheme relating to the vesting of ownership rights under Roshni Act, the beneficiary ought to have been in the physical and recorded possession of land in Rabi 2004. In the year 2008 a mutation in respect of the land measuring 01 Kanal out of Khasra No.119 min has been attested in favour of the petitioner under the Roshni Act, 2006. Similarly, out of the State land bearing Khasra No.520 shown as common path upto the year 2015, land measuring 92/2 marlas has been mutated under the Roshni Act, in favour of the beneficiary, that is the petitioner, Mohd. Mubashir Latifi. On verification, it has been further found that vesting of ownership rights conferred upon the beneficiary in respect of land measuring 01 Kanal 9/ marlas out of Khasra No.119 min and Khasra No.120 (State land) situate at Sidhra for residential purposes vide order No.DCJ/HQA/Roshni/08/632-33 dated 26.03.2008 of Deputy Commissioner, Jammu and the mutation No.588/jeem dated 10.04.2008 recorded and attested in favour of the petitioner (beneficiary) is in contravention of the law and the rules and these have been obtained by abuse of official position in connivance with the District Approval Committee, Jammu. The above said acts of omission/commission on the part of the public servants concerned comprising the constituted committee and the beneficiary constitute offences under section 5(1)(d) read with 5(2) J & K P.C. Act Svt. 2006 and 120-B RPC.

(2.) Where the allegations in the first information report and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognisable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Sec. 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Sec. 155(2) of the Code.

(3.) Where the un-controverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused.