Early Times Report
Jammu, Nov 10: In a significant relief to a senior officer of Jammu Municipal Corporation (JMC), the High Court of Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh at Jammu has quashed the corruption charges framed against Farzana Ara Naqashbandi, former Senior Town Planner, observing that the prosecution and trial court adopted a “mechanical and legally unsustainable approach” while framing charges.
Justice Rajesh Sekhri, while pronouncing judgment in a petition filed under Section 482 CrPC, held that the material collected by the Anti-Corruption Bureau (ACB) did not disclose any prima facie case of criminal
misconduct or conspiracy against the petitioner, who had merely forwarded a building permission file in accordance with municipal procedure.
The case arose from an FIR registered by ACB alleging that Naqashbandi, as Senior Town Planner, had recommended a building permission for a commercial-cum-residential structure on land allegedly belonging to Temple Shri Raghunath Ji Maharaj, ignoring objections from revenue officials. The prosecution claimed that her recommendation facilitated illegal sanctioning of the building plan by then Municipal Commissioner Kiran Wattal.
However, the High Court noted that the lease deeds of the property were duly registered in 1986, and the beneficiaries had already been declared legal heirs through a civil court decree of 2013. The Court also cited municipal records which clarified that, as per ease-of-doing-business guidelines, cases with less than 20,000 sq. ft floor area were not required to be referred to the UTEIC Committee, making the petitioner’s recommendation “procedurally correct.”
“The trial court embarked upon an unchartered territory and failed to appreciate the controversy in its correct perspective,” Justice Sekhri observed, adding that “mere forwarding of a file by a subordinate officer, without any evidence of mala fide intent or illegal gratification, cannot amount to criminal misconduct.”
The Bench further pointed out that co-accused Municipal Commissioner Kiran Wattal had already been discharged in the same case by a previous High Court order, which had attained finality, yet the trial court proceeded mechanically against the petitioner.
“The prosecution material, even if taken at its face value, does not disclose any offence. The continuation of proceedings would amount to abuse of process of law,” the Court ruled, while setting aside the order of the Special Judge, Anti-Corruption, dated October 14, 2023.
As a result, the High Court allowed the petition, quashed the charge order, and discharged the petitioner from all allegations. (JNF) |
