Nasreen Shama v. CBI
In the High Court of Jammu and Kashmir
CRM(M) 178/2020
Before Justice Javed Iqbal Wani
Decided on August 26, 2020

Relevancy of the case: Quashing of FIR involving fraudulent transactions, misappropriation of money, and forging of signatures

Statutes and Provisions Involved

• The Jammu and Kashmir State Ranbir Penal Code, 1989 (Section 120B, 420, 467, 468, 471)
• The Information Technology Act, 2000 (Section 65, 66, 66C, 66D)
• The Jammu and Kashmir Prevention of Corruption Act, 1949 (Section 5(2), 5(1)(d))

Relevant Facts of the Case

• The petitioner was charged under two different FIRs involving fraudulent transactions, misuse of the user ID of post office officials, and withdrawal of money by forging signatures of account holders. All of this caused wrongful loss to the Government Exchequer. These FIRs were filed around the same time.
• Both the FIRs were filed regarding the same issue with the accused persons as prime witnesses.
• The petitioner challenges the impugned order passed by the trial court.

Prominent Arguments by the Advocates

• The petitioner’s counsel submits that the trial court’s relied judgment is incorrect as the second FIR was not a consequence of the offences mentioned in the first FIR. Also, they pointed out the fact that few witnesses are different in both of them.
• The respondent’s counsel contends that separate charge sheets have to be filed for separate incidents. They also state that the allegations stated in those FIRs are different with different accused. They also clarified that the first FIR pertained to fraudulent activities relating to savings accounts in a post office. In contrast, the second FIR involved the misappropriation of PPF accounts in a head post office.

Opinion of the Bench

• The court considered the facts and believed that both the FIRs are different and cover different aspects. They also have different consequences and could not be equated together.
• It is also seen that in both the offences, the petitioner had a different role to play. Hence the petition for quashing the charge sheet was not entertained.

Final Decision

• The petition was dismissed.

This case summary was prepared by Nandini Gadgil, an undergraduate student at DES Shri Navalmal Firodia Law College, Pune, during her internship with The Cyber Blog India during January/February 2021.