HC refuses to quash corruption FIR against former DIC Pulwama, says investigation cannot be stifled at this stage

13/08/2026

SRINAGAR, Aug 12: The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh has dismissed a petition filed by former General Manager, District Industries Centre (DIC), Pulwama, Laiq Parvez, seeking quashing of an FIR registered by the Anti-Corruption Bureau (ACB), holding that the allegations and material collected during verifica-tion warranted continuation of the investigation.
Justice Shahzad Azeem, who pronounced the judgment in CRM(M) No. 140/2020 on Wednesday, observed that the investigation was examining the interlinked roles of the petitioner, beneficiary unit holders and officers of SICOP/SIDCO and that quashing the proceedings at this stage would amount to truncating an ongoing investigation.
Parvez, who served as GM, DIC Pulwama from June 2017 to February 2018 and retired as Programme Officer, ICDS, Kulgam in April 2019, had invoked the High Court's jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking quashing of FIR No. 03/2020 registered on July 7, 2020 by Police Station ACB South Kashmir.
The FIR relates to alleged offences under Section 5(1)(d) read with Section 5(2) of the Jammu and Kashmir Prevention of Corruption Act, Svt. 2006, and Section 120-B of the Ranbir Penal Code (RPC).
The case arose from a verification initiated after a complaint by Mukhtiyar Yousuf, President of the Federation of Chambers of Industries, Kashmir, alleging corruption at DIC Pulwama.
The ACB had subsequently served Parvez a questionnaire alleging that he had conspired with unit holders, abused his official position and conferred undue benefits upon them for alleged personal monetary gains. Parvez denied the allegations and relied upon provisions of the Industrial Policy, 2016, contending that the General Manager, DIC was competent to allot land and execute lease deeds for eligible industrial units.
Appearing for the petitioner, Senior Advocate R. A. Jan, assisted by Advocate Safa Aziz, argued that the allegations, even if accepted at face value, did not disclose the commission of criminal misconduct.
The petitioner's case was that Clauses 2.12.1, 4.2.1 and 4.2.2 of the Industrial Policy, 2016 empowered the General Manager, DIC to allot land to MSME unit holders having investment in plant and machinery up to Rs. 5 crore.
It was further argued that Parvez had acted within the scope of his authority and that there was no allegation supported by material showing personal monetary gain, abuse of official position or conspiracy. Reliance was also placed on several Supreme Court judgments, including State of West Bengal v. Swapan Kumar Guha, State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, Amit Kapoor v. Ramesh Chander and Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra.
Opposing the petition, Senior Additional Advocate General Mohsin Qadiri, assisted by Assistant Counsel Maha Majeed and Advocate Haris Khan, submitted that the petitioner had issued land allotment orders and executed lease deeds despite the powers having been vested in SICOP/SIDCO under the applicable policy and procedural guidelines.
The ACB maintained that Industrial Estate Pulwama and Chatpora, measuring less than 500 kanals, had already been transferred to SICOP under Government Order No. 48-IND of 2017 dated March 3, 2017 and handed over on April 20, 2017.
Despite the transfer, the petitioner allegedly continued exercising powers relating to land allotment. The investigation and departmental and expert committee proceedings had also indicated irregularities concerning approximately 62 units, including allotments allegedly made without Single Window Clearance Committee (SWCC) approval, allotments made after clearance but without competence, and acceptance of physical applications despite an online-only procedure.
The High Court examined the relevant provisions of the Industrial Policy, 2016 and Procedural Guidelines, 2017.
Justice Azeem noted that while Clause 2.12.1 and Clause 4.2.2 empowered the General Manager, DIC to consider allotment of land for MSME units having investment up to Rs. 5 crore, the power was not one that could be exercised by the General Manager in isolation.
The court observed that certain formalities were required before allotment, including assessment of the size of the plot by the competent committee. Under the policy, the General Manager was empowered to consider the request and determine the plot requirement in accordance with the applicable guidelines, but it was incorrect to contend that he was the sole authority for assessing the requirement and size of the plot.
The court further noted that online registration was mandatory under Clause 4.2.1 and that the General Manager was required to forward the indent through email to the concerned Estate Managers of SICOP/SIDCO.
The Procedural Guidelines, 2017 provided for appraisal and approval of industrial units by the SWCC and Apex Project Clearance Committee, depending upon the investment involved. For units with investment up to Rs. 5 crore, the SWCC comprised the General Manager, DIC as Chairman, along with representatives of the Power Development Department, State Pollution Control Board and Estate Manager of SIDCO/SICOP.
"Even for allotment of land to unit holders having investment upto Rs. 5.00 Crore, the decision was required to be taken by the Committee headed by the General Manager, and not by the petitioner solely," the court observed.
The court also referred to the procedural requirement that final allotment orders were to be issued by the officer notified by SICOP/SIDCO within seven days of SWCC approval, while lease deeds were required to be executed by the allottee with SICOP/SIDCO within 60 days.
A significant factor considered by the court was the allegation that Parvez had made 48 allotments in industrial estates that had already been handed over to SICOP.
Rejecting the argument that the 2017 procedural guidelines applied only to new industrial estates while land in the DIC Land Bank remained within the General Manager's powers, Justice Azeem held that the factual position emerging from the case diary did not sustain that distinction.
The court noted that the petitioner had allegedly made 48 allotments in estates already transferred to and taken possession of by SICOP, making the question of whether the land was otherwise available with DIC irrelevant in those cases.
The judgment further recorded that investigation was continuing into the role of beneficiary unit holders whose applications had earlier been rejected but were subsequently processed and recommended by the petitioner.
The role of the General Manager, Srinagar and other officers associated with the transfer and management of the industrial estates was also being examined. The court noted that the investigation was not confined to the petitioner and was also looking into whether other officers failed to designate the required Special Officer or remained silent despite their responsibilities under the policy and guidelines.
Justice Azeem said that once 48 allotments allegedly made in industrial estates already handed over to SICOP were taken into account, questions concerning the status of individual plots and the timing of SWCC clearance were matters for investigation and the evidentiary record.
The court cautioned that stifling the investigation at that stage would amount to putting a premium on the alleged acts, particularly when the investigation concerned a large area of land earmarked for industrial development and involved allegations of violation of prescribed norms and policy.
The court identified four issues requiring examination during investigation: whether any undue benefit was actually conferred, whether there was concerted action, whether the petitioner acted alone or in league with others, and whether Corporation officers remained silent or facilitated the process.
Rejecting the petitioner's reliance on Supreme Court precedents, the court observed that the FIR was not founded merely on a vague complaint. It was preceded by formal verification, departmental enquiry and expert committee findings pointing to irregularities in approximately 62 units.
The court also took note of the fact that the industrial estates at Pulwama and Chatpora had been transferred to SICOP on April 20, 2017, while the petitioner was alleged to have subsequently made 48 allotments there.
The court further noted that physical applications were allegedly accepted despite the online mandate and that previously rejected cases were processed, circumstances which, at the prima facie stage, required investigation into the allegation of undue benefit and abuse of official position.
The judgment noted that documents relating to 42 units had been sent for forensic examination and that the role of beneficiary unit holders and other SICOP/SIDCO officers was still under scrutiny.
Justice Azeem observed that where the alleged roles of different persons were interwoven, quashing proceedings against one accused while investigation into the role of others continued could result in an incomplete or truncated investigation.
The court also examined the ingredients of the alleged offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act, observing that the provision applies where a public servant, by abusing official position, obtains for himself or any other person a valuable thing or pecuniary advantage.
It held that several factual questions remained open, including whether the petitioner continued exercising powers after the estates had been transferred to SICOP, whether SWCC clearance was obtained before or after the allotment orders, whether selective benefits were conferred and whether the alleged acts resulted in undue advantage to unit holders.
The court held that the debate over the precise jurisdiction for allotment under various clauses of the Industrial Policy became less significant at this stage because the petitioner was alleged to have allotted land that had already been transferred to SICOP on April 20, 2017, before he assumed charge as GM, DIC Pulwama.
Justice Azeem further observed that the Industrial Policy, 2016 and Procedural Guidelines, 2017 had been adopted by the Government in exercise of its administrative and executive powers and that the petitioner could not contend that he was bound only by the policy while disregarding the procedural guidelines framed for its implementation.
On the question of "reason to suspect", the court said it was too early to form an opinion on mens rea or dishonest intention.
It reiterated that while exercising jurisdiction to quash an FIR, the court does not conduct a mini-trial and only examines whether the FIR and accompanying material, read with the governing policy, disclose the necessary ingredients of the alleged offence.
The court said the April 20, 2017 transfer of the estates to SICOP was a significant factual circumstance and that the continuation of allotment powers thereafter required clear justification.
"As long as the investigation into the role of the beneficiaries and the officers of SICOP/SIDCO is continuing and is relevant to establishing or negating the ingredients" of the alleged offences, the court held, it could not be justified in holding that no reasonable suspicion existed and in stifling the investigation.
The court, however, clarified that the issue of quashing could be examined after completion of the investigation, or if at any stage the material collected against the petitioner ex facie failed to support the allegations.
Consequently, the High Court dismissed the petition as being "bereft of merit" and directed that the case diary be returned to Senior AAG Mohsin Qadiri for onward transmission to the concerned police station.
The judgment was pronounced on August 12, 2026 and was approved for reporting.

Photo Gallery

BSE Sensex

NSE Nifty