3000 illegal backdoor engagements in J&K Bank

HC refuses to quash FIR against Ex-Chairman

29/06/2022

SRINAGAR, Jun 28: The Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court dismissed the petition filed by Parvez Ahmad Nengroo seeking quashing of FIR registered by Anticorruption Bureau in much publicized alleged 3000 illegal backdoor engagements in J&K Bank.
Justice Sanjay Dhar while dismissing the petition, observed that counsel for the petitioner that the offences, which are subject matter of two FIRs, have arisen out of a single conspiracy which commenced with the tenure of the then Chairman, Sheikh Mushtaq Ahmad and it continued even after he demitted the office and was replaced by the petitioner herein as the Chairman of the Bank. On this ground it is urged that offences arising out of the two FIRs form part of the same transaction and, as such, the second FIR is not competent. The argument, at first blush, appears to be attractive but when the facts narrated in the two FIRs and the charge sheets arising out of the first FIR are scrutinized carefully, the argument does not stand the test of sameness and the consequence test which are necessary for quashing the subsequent FIR. In the first FIR although the allegations regarding a general conspiracy of making illegal appointments in J&K Bank Ltd have been made but then it specifically focuses on illegal appointments of certain individuals, namely, Iqbal Wani, Mehraj Magray, Feroz Ara, Waseem Bhat, Mushtaq Mir and Faizan Chowpan in J&K Bank Brach Dangiwacha and several such fraudulent appointments of various persons including the appointment of Ms. Anjum and one more girl from Bandipora in Rohama Branch of the J&K Bank Ltd. The investigating agency, while investigating the said FIR, has concentrated itself on modus operandi of appointment of aforenamed individuals and has not travelled to investigate the larger conspiracy.
Justice Sanjay Dhar further observed that so far as the impugned FIR is concerned, the same relates to the larger conspiracy of appointments of all Banking Attendants and Assistant Banking Associates that have been made during the period from the year 2011 up to the year 2019.
As per the preliminary verification, 1003 backdoor appointments have been made during the tenure of accused Shri Sheikh Mushtaq Ahmad whereas 1256 illegal appointments have been made during the tenure of the petitioner herein. It is not the case of the petitioner that all the illegal appointments have been made through a single order at one and the same time. As is clearly revealed from the material on record, these appointments have been made from time to time over a period of about eight years by issuing a number of appointment orders in violation of the set norms. Thus, it is a case of distinct incidents having occurred which do not form part of the same transaction though the modus operandi for these illegal appointments may have been similar. Each appointment order alleged to have been made by the petitioner and the co-accused constitutes a separate offence and, as such, the instant case does not satisfy the test of sameness. Even the consequence test is not applicable to the instant case, inasmuch as it cannot be said that the second FIR pertains to an incident which may be a consequence of an incident covered by the first FIR. The incidents/occurrences mentioned in the two FIRs being distinct. Thus, I am unable to persuade myself to hold that the second FIR would form part of the same transaction. Even in T. T. Antony's case , the Supreme Court has held that where two FIRs are not in respect of the same cognizable offences or same occurrence giving rise to one or more cognizable offences nor are they alleged to have been committed in the course of same transaction or the same occurrence as the one alleged in the first FIR, there is no prohibition in registration of the second FIR. Thus, even as per the ratio laid down in the aforesaid case, the lodging of second FIR by the respondent in the instant case is not impermissible in law.
With these observations, Court observed that this is not a fit case where this Court should exercise its jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Cr. P. C. The petition is, accordingly, dismissed. It is, however, made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the allegations made in the impugned FIR.

Photo Gallery

BSE Sensex

NSE Nifty