Court holds that exhaustive investigation and departmental reviews found no criminal misconduct by public officials; directs acceptance of closure report exonerating petitioners.
In a significant judgment dated October 6, 2026, the Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court, presided over by Justice Mohd. Yousuf Wani, quashed the order of the Special Judge, Anti-Corruption, Jammu, which had rejected the final closure report and directed further investigation into allegations of irregularities in the implementation of the Saubhagya Scheme. The petitioners, including Manhar Gupta and others, who held official positions in the Power Development Department (PDD) during the scheme's execution, had been under investigation since 2020.
The Saubhagya Scheme, launched by the Government of India to electrify every un-electrified household in Jammu & Kashmir, was widely regarded as a successful initiative, with extensive coordination among various government agencies and third-party monitoring. Despite the scheme's completion and accolades, allegations of procedural lapses and financial irregularities led to the registration of two FIRs in March 2020 by the Anti-Corruption Bureau (ACB) Jammu and Srinagar.
Following exhaustive investigations, the ACB submitted closure reports recommending only Regular Departmental Action (RDA) for procedural violations but found no evidence of criminal wrongdoing. The Government of Jammu & Kashmir conducted further departmental re-examinations and third-party inspections, including audits by the Government of India, which corroborated the absence of malfeasance. The Government also issued an order in May 2024 closing the RDA for lack of material evidence of willful misconduct.
While the Special Court in Srinagar accepted the closure report for FIR No. 3/2020, the Special Judge in Jammu rejected the closure report related to FIR No. 4/2020 and ordered further investigation. The High Court, upon hearing the petitioners' challenge, observed that the Special Judge's order bore the characteristics of a reinvestigation, effectively displacing the findings of the investigating agency without sufficient basis.
The Court emphasized that procedural lapses or deviations from standard operating procedures, absent proof of willful wrongdoing, do not warrant prolonging the criminal process against public servants who had already undergone multiple levels of scrutiny. It was noted that the petitioners had faced preliminary inquiries, detailed investigations, departmental actions, and third-party audits, all culminating in no material evidence of criminal misconduct.
Referencing authoritative Supreme Court precedents such as State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal and Iman Pratapgadhi v. State of Gujarat, the High Court reiterated its power under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) to quash criminal proceedings to prevent abuse of process and secure the ends of justice. The Court found that continuation of investigation would be oppressive and unwarranted, particularly when the Government of India had recognized the scheme's successful execution and awarded the officials involved.
Consequently, the High Court allowed the petitions, set aside the impugned order dated August 13, 2024, and accepted the final closure report absolving the petitioners of criminal liability. The judgment clarified that this acceptance does not authorize release of any amounts related to the scheme, which remains subject to regulatory and governmental controls.
This ruling underscores the judiciary's balanced approach in safeguarding public servants from vexatious prosecutions while ensuring that genuine allegations of corruption are thoroughly investigated.
Bottom Line:
BNSS Section 528 - Rejection of closure report and direction for further investigation by Special Judge in ACB case relating to implementation of Saubhagya Scheme - Where investigating agency had found no criminality, only procedural lapses and recommended departmental action, and subsequent departmental re-examination and third-party inspection also found no material evidence of wilful wrongdoing, impugned order directing further investigation having trappings of reinvestigation was liable to be set aside qua petitioners.
Statutory provision(s): Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 Section 528, Section 193; Prevention of Corruption Act, 2006 Section 5; Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.) Section 173(8)
Manhar Gupta v. Union Territory of J&K, (J&K and Ladakh) : Law Finder Doc Id # 2994103
