SRINAGAR: The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh has dismissed a petition filed by a serving Tehsildar seeking quashing of a bribery FIR registered by the Anti-Corruption Bureau, holding that he had failed to make out any case for interference after the investigation was transferred to the CBI, which found “sufficient evidence” of demand, motive and recovery of illegal gratification.
The court also allowed the CBI to file its chargesheet before the competent court.
Justice M A Chowdhary passed the judgment on August 12 in a writ petition filed by Rohit Sharma, a 38-year-old Tehsildar of the J&K Administrative Service, challenging FIR No. 02/2022 registered on November 14, 2022 under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act. The judgment had been reserved on July 24.
Sharma was represented by senior advocate Sunil Sethi, assisted by advocate Parimoksh Seth. The Union Territory and ACB authorities were represented by Additional Advocate General Raman Sharma, assisted by advocate Saliqa Sheikh.
Senior advocate P N Raina, assisted by J A Hamal, appeared for two ACB officers, while advocate D S Saini represented the complainant. The CBI was represented by senior advocate Monika Kohli, assisted by advocate Nazia Fazal.
The case arose from a written complaint received by the ACB Rajouri (Camp Jammu) on November 1, 2022 from Sominder Singh alias Sourav, alleging that Sharma, then Tehsildar Bahu, had demanded Rs 2 lakh as bribe for issuing a fard intikhab in the name of the complainant’s mother, Kuldeep Kour. The complainant, according to the judgment, was unwilling to pay and approached the ACB.
The allegation was subsequently verified through an ACB officer, who examined a voice recording of the conversation between the complainant and Sharma and submitted a report on November 14, 2022.
The ACB found a prima facie offence under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act and registered the FIR. A trap team was then constituted and, after completing the pre-trap proceedings, laid the trap at the Tehsil Office, Bahu, on November 14.
Sharma was caught red-handed with Rs 50,000, according to the court record. He was arrested and lodged at Police Station Pacca Danga, Jammu, while his residential premises were also searched. He was later granted bail by the High Court on November 21, 2022.
The investigation was initially transferred from the ACB Rajouri-Poonch Range to the ACB Jammu-Samba-Kathua Range on November 15, 2022. It was subsequently transferred by the J&K Government to the CBI on January 18, 2023. The CBI re-registered the case as RC0042023A0006 and took up the investigation.
Sharma, however, approached the High Court alleging that the trap was fabricated and that he had been falsely implicated. He sought the constitution of a Special Investigation Team headed by an officer not below the rank of Deputy Inspector General of Police, seizure and forensic examination of CCTV footage from the Tehsildar’s office, and quashing of the FIR.
One of his principal arguments was that the ACB Rajouri-Poonch Range had no territorial jurisdiction to register the case because neither he nor the complainant was connected with Rajouri or Poonch. He also alleged that the trap was a device employed by the complainant in connivance with government officials to take revenge on him.
The petitioner’s counsel argued that Sharma had earlier conducted an inquiry into a suspected forged mutation concerning more than 26 kanals of land at Bahu Rakh Narwal, Jammu. The mutation was allegedly supported by forged signatures of the Deputy Commissioner, Jammu, and Sharma had reported the matter to the Deputy Commissioner. The petitioner alleged that the complainant had consequently developed hostility towards him and engineered the bribery case.
The ACB rejected the allegations, maintaining that Sharma had been caught red-handed after the demand had been verified. It argued that the question of territorial jurisdiction could not be used to quash the FIR and pointed out that the CBI, after taking over the investigation, had independently found merit in the allegations and completed the investigation with a chargesheet.
The ACB officers’ counsel, P N Raina, submitted that the conversation between the complainant and the petitioner had been scientifically verified, the money had been recovered during the trap and the voice samples had been proved by the forensic laboratory. He also pointed out that the case had been transferred to the jurisdictional police station the day after the trap and subsequently to the CBI, while Sharma had not challenged either the government order transferring the investigation or the CBI’s subsequent registration of the case.
The complainant’s counsel, meanwhile, maintained that Sharma had been caught demanding and accepting the bribe in the presence of independent witnesses.
He also relied upon the forensic examination of the alleged forged signatures, saying the J&K FSL had found that the signatures were not those of the complainant.
The CBI told the court that it had examined the allegations concerning the alleged sham trap, the recorded conversation and CCTV footage and had found nothing to support the petitioner’s claims. The agency said its investigation was complete and that it was under a legal obligation to prosecute the accused by filing a chargesheet.
Justice Chowdhary identified two principal questions for determination: whether the FIR could be quashed because it was registered by the ACB Rajouri police station beyond its territorial jurisdiction, and whether Sharma had been falsely implicated because of his alleged dispute with the complainant over the land mutation.
On territorial jurisdiction, the court rejected Sharma’s contention. Referring to Section 156(2) of the CrPC and Supreme Court precedents, it held that an FIR cannot be quashed merely because it was registered at a police station beyond the territorial jurisdiction of the place of occurrence. The court noted that the police station, on receiving information about a cognisable offence, was obliged to register and enquire into the matter; if necessary, the FIR could subsequently be forwarded to the competent police station.
The court observed that the ACB had transferred the investigation to the Jammu Division police station on the very next day, November 15, 2022. The J&K Government later transferred the case to the CBI, which re-registered it and completed its investigation. Importantly, the court noted that Sharma had not challenged either the transfer of investigation or the CBI’s subsequent registration of the case.
The CBI’s investigation, the court said, had examined the issues raised by Sharma, including the recorded conversation and CCTV footage. According to the agency’s status report, forensic experts had matched the voice samples of the complainant and accused, while the CCTV footage had also been examined. The CBI ultimately concluded that there was sufficient evidence indicating “demand, motive and recovery of illegal gratification” by Sharma and sought sanction for his prosecution.
The High Court also rejected the allegation that the complainant’s hostility towards Sharma rendered the bribery case liable to be quashed. It noted that the CBI had independently examined the issue and had found the case proved against the petitioner.
The court held that the question of the complainant’s alleged motive was a matter of evidence and trial, rather than a basis for quashing the FIR.
Referring to a 2024 Supreme Court judgment, the High Court noted that verification of a bribe demand before laying a trap was an important safeguard under the Prevention of Corruption Act. It also referred to a 2026 Supreme Court ruling cautioning High Courts against conducting a “mini trial” while considering a petition for quashing an FIR.
The court further rejected Sharma’s plea for an SIT, observing that the investigation had already been transferred to the CBI. Citing Supreme Court judgments, it held that an accused “cannot dictate the choice of the agency that investigates them, nor can they demand a court-monitored investigation, as a matter of right”.
On the demand for seizure and forensic examination of CCTV records, the court noted that the footage had already been secured pursuant to an earlier interim order and that the CBI had seized it and made it part of the investigation.
Concluding that Sharma had failed to make out a case warranting interference with the investigation, the court dismissed the petition and all accompanying applications. It vacated any interim directions and gave the CBI liberty to lay the chargesheet before the competent court.
