Evaluating Evidence While Framing Charges Shouldn't Become Mini-Trial: J&K High Court Quashes Corruption Charges Against Ex-JMC Commissioner

Cautioning against turning this exercise into a "mini trial" to determine the guilt of the accused a bench of Justice Sanjay Dhar explained,

“..all that is required at this stage is that the Court must be satisfied that the evidence collected by the prosecution is sufficient to presume that the accused has committed an offence. Even a strong suspicion would suffice”

Citing Shashikant Sharma and ors vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and another, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 1037, the bench reiterated that at the stage of framing of charges, if, from the admitted evidence of the prosecution as reflected in the documents by the I.O in the report under Section 173 CrPC, the necessary ingredients of an offence are not made out, then the Court is not obligated to frame charge for such offence against the accused.

These observations arose from a petition filed by a former Commissioner of Jammu Municipal Corporation (JMC), challenging the Special Judge Anti-Corruption Court's order framing charges against him under Section 5(1)(d) read with Section 5(2) of the Jammu and Kashmir Prevention of Corruption Act and Section 120-B of the RPC. The charges emanated from allegations of misuse of official position while granting building permission to two private beneficiaries in contravention of procedural requirements.

The case originated when an application filed by the beneficiaries, Kuldeep Kumar and Pardeep Kumar, seeking building permission for constructing a mixed-use complex on land leased to them by the Mandir Sh. Raghunath Ji Maharaj.

The Anti-Corruption Bureau, Jammu, alleged that land was temple property, and the lease deeds were flawed as they lacked the khasra number and were contrary to the Maharaja's Ailan No. 35, which prohibited the sale or mortgage of temple land.

The ACB further alleged that the petitioner, acting on his last day in office, granted building permission despite objections from the Assistant Commissioner (Nazool) and other revenue authorities and without referring the case to the Building Operations Controlling Authority (BOCA) or Urban Transport Environment Improvement Committee (UTEIC).

Assailing the charges the petitioner submitted that the lease deeds were validly executed, and the land was clearly identifiable through site plans and a civil court decree, which had adjudicated the beneficiaries as legal heirs of the original lessee.

It was further argued that the building permission was granted for a mixed-use structure of less than 4,000 sq. ft., which did not require clearance from UTEIC or BOCA and hence the allegations were groundless, as clarified by the JMC and other official documents.

After meticulously analyzing the legal framework governing the framing of charges the bench cited precedents including Union of India v. Prafulla Kumar Samal (1979), Sajjan Kumar v. CBI (2010), and Ghulam Hassan Beigh v. Mohammad Maqbool Magrey (2022), to underscore that the court must sift evidence to determine the existence of a prima facie case but avoid a trial-like evaluation.

Adding that strong suspicion suffices for framing charges the court clarified that such suspicion must be grounded in evidence and not mere conjecture.

Finding that the lease deeds, corroborated by a civil court decree and revenue records, adequately established the beneficiaries' legal possession of the land the court also took note of Ailan No. 35 imposed no restriction on leasing temple properties. The court criticized the trial court for misinterpreting the directive's intent and overlooking the Maharaja's nuanced distinction between lease and permanent alienation.

Observing that UTEIC clearance was not mandatory as the building's floor area was below 20,000 square feet the court also noted the absence of BOCA meetings during the relevant period which validated the petitioner's direct approval.

In view of these findings the court discharged Wattal, holding that the chargesheet did not substantiate the prosecution's claims. The trial court's order was thus deemed unsustainable, and the charges against the petitioner were dismissed.

Case Title:Kiran Wattal Vs UT Of J&K

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 10

Click Here To Read/Download Judgment