OWP No.1577/2013 Page 1 of 19

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND

LADAKH AT JAMMU

Reserved on: 20.08.2026

Pronounced on: 30.09.2026

Uploaded on: 30.09.2026

Whether the operative part

or full judgment is

pronounced: Full

OWP No.1577/2013

ASHOK SINGH MANHAS

...PETITIONER(S)/APPELLANT (S)

Through: - Mr. Himanshu Beotra, Advocate.

Vs.

UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

…RESPONDENT(S)

Through: - Ms. Monika Kohli, Sr. AAG, with

Ms. Sagira Jaffer, Advocate.

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJNESH OSWAL, JUDGE

JUDGMENT

1) The petitioner, who is arrayed as an accused in the

chargesheet titled “State vs. Uttam Chand and others”, has

filed this petition for quashing FIR No.RC0042011A0003

CBI/ACB/Jammu dated 30

th May, 2011 registered by

respondent No.2 under Section 120-B, 420, 467, 468, 471 of

RPC and Section 5(1)(d) read with Section 5(2) of J&K

Prevention of Corruption Act, charge sheet arising out of FIR

mentioned above and for quashing the order dated 4

th

September, 2013 passed by the Court of Special Judge, Anti-

Corruption (CBI Cases), Jammu (for short “the trial court”),

OWP No.1577/2013 Page 2 of 19

whereby the petitioner has been charged for commission of

offences under Section 120-B, 420, 467, 468, 471 of RPC

and Section 5(1)(d) read with Section 5(2) of J&K Prevention

of Corruption Act. The petitioner has also sought the

quashing of resolution No.4/31/61-T dated 01.04.1963 as

ultra-vires to Constitution of India read with Constitution of

Jammu and Kashmir. It is pertinent to note that the

Constitution of Jammu and Kashmir is no longer in force.

2) The petitioner has sought the abovementioned reliefs

on the following grounds:

I) That the allegations levelled in the challan, even

if taken at their face value, do not, prima facie,

constitute an offence for prosecuting the

petitioner under Section 120-B, 420, 467, 468,

471 of RPC and Section 5(1)(d) read with Section

5(2) of J&K Prevention of Corruption Act.

II) That the learned trial court has failed to

appreciate that a civil suit challenging the

mortgage deed regarding the land, was already

pending disposal before the learned Sub Judge,

Jammu, much prior to the registration of FIR,

which fact was deliberately not taken into

consideration either by the Investigating Officer

at the time of filing of charge sheet or by the

learned trial court while charging the petitioner

for commission of aforementioned offences.

OWP No.1577/2013 Page 3 of 19

III) That the CBI cannot be called to investigate any

or all controversies arising in a particular State in

a routine manner, nor the CBI can be called upon

to take cognizance of any offence for the purpose

of lodging of FIR and investigation on the mere

allegation against the private person or state

Govt. employee.

IV) That the learned trial court failed to appreciate

that the respondent No.2 lodged an FIR and

started investigating the crime of its own which

was exclusively the prerogative of the State

agency and if the present FIR, and challan

produced are not quashed, then it would be a

clear case of conflict of interest between the

State on the one hand and the Union Government

on the other hand. It is only in special cases,

where the state requires the assistance of central

agency or for that matter the competent court of

law feels the necessity of investigation by central

agency in addition to or in exclusion to the state

agency, the central agency can exercise its

jurisdiction.

V) That CBI is not a creation of statute, having legal

standing and it has been created by an executive

order/resolution No.4/31/61-T dated 01.04.1963

issued by Secretary to Govt. of India and the said

resolution, being merely an executive order, does

not specify the source of executive power which

created it. Further the resolution is neither the

OWP No.1577/2013 Page 4 of 19

result of delegated legislation nor the same has

been even produced before the President of

India. As per the provision of criminal Procedure

code, the CBI is neither an organ of Delhi Special

Police Investigation Act 1946 nor the same is

police force within the meaning of said Act. The

"police functioning' falls within entry-II of List II of

Constitution of India read with Constitution of

J&K and to legislate upon the same is only the

prerogative of the State. It is stated that the

Centre has no power or jurisdiction to legislate

upon the same, as such, functioning of CBI in

term of resolution supra in the State of J&K is

unconstitutional and ultra vires, more

particularly when it is not a Union Territory.

3) Respondent-CBI has filed the response stating therein

the factual aspects of the case. It is stated that UCO Bank

has been established under Reserve Bank of India rules by

the Ministry of Finance, Govt. of India, and its officials are

Central Govt. public servants not of State Govt. Moreover,

the Govt. of J&K has accorded consent to Delhi Sp ecial

Police Establishment Act and by virtue of the said consent,

CBI is registering, investigating and prosecuting cases in the

State of J&K since 1958 and till date the consent has not

been withdrawn by the J&K Govt. and the accused involved

were/are being tried and convicted by the Special Courts of

Anti-Corruption, Special Court CBI and CJM Court. All the

OWP No.1577/2013 Page 5 of 19

three Special Courts/Chief Judicial Magistrates have been

duly notified by the Govt. of J&K, Department of Justice

under J&K PC Act,2006 and Criminal Law Amendment Act,

1958 and the High Court has posted Special Judges for

conducting the proceedings of CBI cases. Further, the

Hon'ble Apex Court of India has also directed all the States

to establish 71 CBI Special Courts for the speedy trial and

disposal of CBI cases. In J&K, one such Special Court for the

trial of CBI cases has been established headquartered at

Jammu. Therefore, this petition is misleading and baseless.

It is further stated that resolution No.4/31/61-1 dated

01.04.1963 has been discussed by the Guwahati High Court

and the judgment has been stayed by the Hon'ble Apex Court

of India and till this matter is not decided finally by the

Hon'ble Supreme Court, the same cannot be agitated and

adjudicated upon by this Court, therefore, the petition

deserves to be dismissed. It is further submitted that DSPE

Act till date has neither been quashed by any High Court nor

repealed by the Parliament. Moreover, its constitutional

validity has been upheld by Hon'ble Apex Court of India in

Vineet Narian judgment, Common Cause judgment and

other catena of judgments. Besides, this Court has upheld

the constitutional validity of DSPE Act and the consent

accorded to CBI by the Govt. of J&K in the judgment titled

OWP No.1577/2013 Page 6 of 19

Susheel Kumar Khajuria Vs CBI and other two judgments

referred in the said judgment. Therefore, this matter once

settled by the Hon'ble Apex Court and this Court, cannot be

re-agitated and reopened.

4) Rejoinder affidavit has been filed by the petitioner

stating therein that at the time of filing of challan by the

respondent No.2 against the petitioner and other accused

persons, neither any Bank official was made as accused nor

any other Central Government employee was the accused in

the said charge sheet and all the accused persons, against

whom the respondent No.2 filed charge sheet, were either

the private persons or State government employees,

therefore, there was absolutely no reason for the respondent

No.2 to transgress into the spheres and boundaries of State

agencies, specifically when the respondent CBI was neither

invited by this Court nor by the State agencies to intervene

in the said matter. The petitioner has referred to letter issued

by Additional Secretary to Government of J&K, General

Administration Department, to assert that the consent was

given on case-to-case basis.

5) Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued,

primarily, on the ground that the constitution of CBI is bad

in law and once the CBI is not validly constituted, it has no

OWP No.1577/2013 Page 7 of 19

jurisdiction to register and investigate any FIR. He has

argued that offences under Section 120-B, 420, 467, 468,

471 of RPC and Section 5(1)(d) read with Section 5(2) of J&K

Prevention of Corruption Act are not made out against the

petitioner. He has relied upon the judgments of the Hon’ble

Apex Court in “Md. Ibrahim & Ors. Vs. State of Bihar &

Ors, 2010(2) Cr.L.J 2223, “ Guru Bipin Singh Vs.

Chongtham Manihar Singh ” 1996(4) Crimes 135.

6) Per contra, Ms. Monika Kohli, learned Senior AAG, has

submitted that the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has

stayed the judgment of the Guwahati High Court and once

the matter is subjudice before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of

India and the judgment of the Guwahati Hig h Court has

been stayed, the petitioner cannot raise a similar plea before

this court and propriety demands that the said issue should

be left subject to outcome of the decision of the Hon’ble Apex

Court and the trial be allowed to continue. She has further

argued that the petitioner has raised disputed questions of

fact that cannot be considered at the stage of framing

charges or considering discharge, and the same must be

agitated during the trial.

7) Heard learned and perused the record.

OWP No.1577/2013 Page 8 of 19

8) The first issue raised by the petitioner is with regard to

validity of establishment/constitution of the CBI. Learned

counsel for the parties were at ad idem that the judgment of

the Guwahati High Court has been stayed by the Hon’ble

Supreme Court of India, meaning thereby that the CBI can

register and investigate an FIR and file the charge sheet if

the offence/s is/are proved. It needs to be noted that the

proceedings of the trial court were stayed in terms of order

dated 14.11.2013.

9) This Court agrees with the submission made by Ms.

Kohli, Sr. AAG, that the contention raised by the petitioner

regarding the validity of the constitution of the CBI be

deferred to await the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court

of India. Otherwise, also no prejudice shall be caused to the

petitioner, if this issue is left subject to outcome of the

matter pending before Hon’ble the Apex Court.

Consequently, it is directed that further proceedings arising

from the chargesheet shall remain subject to the outcome of

the SLP, wherein the judgment of the Gauhati High Court

currently stands stayed.

10) It was next contended that there are no allegations

levelled against the petitioner for commission of offences

under Section 120-B, 420, 467, 468, 471 of RPC and Section

OWP No.1577/2013 Page 9 of 19

5(1)(d) read with Section 5(2) of J&K Prevention of

Corruption Act. In this regard, the chargesheet reveals that

a reliable information was received that Sh. Uttam Chand

S/o Shri Balu Ram R/o village-Dadwara, Tehsil- Billwar,

Distt. Kathua (J&K) and Sh. Ashok Singh Manhas (petitioner

herein), both partners of M/s Shiva Overseas, located at

Mandir Market, Opp: Ram Darbar, Shastri Nagar, Jammu,

in connivance with unknown persons/bank officials of UCO

Bank, Ashok Market, Raghunath Bazar, Jammu , committed

the offences of cheating and forgery and by abuse of their

official position caused undue loss to the bank and undue

gain to the beneficiaries/loanees. The information further

disclosed that M/S Shiva Overseas is partnership firm in

which Sh. Uttam Chand is a partner holding 85% share and

Ashok Singh Manhas is holding 15% share, and both applied

for a CC limit to the tune of Rs.50 lacs vide application dated

13.03. 2008 duly signed by them. The land measuring 04

kanals and 05 marlas comprising khasra No. 90 min, khata

No. 12, khewat No.1, situated at village Chak Changerwan

was said to be owned by Ashok Singh Manhas and the same

was offered as collateral security but the said land actually

did not belong to Sh. Ashok Singh Manhas and documents

relating to the same were forged/fabricated. Shri Ashok

Singh Manhas and Uttam Chand got false revenue

OWP No.1577/2013 Page 10 of 19

documents prepared in connivance with some unknown

persons in support of their claim. Thereafter, unknown bank

officials of UCO Bank, Ashok Market, Raghunath Bazar,

Jammu, in criminal conspiracy with Shri Ashok Singh

Manhas and Uttam Chand processed the loan on the basis

of these false documents. The concerned Branch Manager

did not make any pre-sanction visit as per the Bank rules

before the sanction of CC limit/loan. The loan proposal of

CC limit for Rs.35 lacs was sanctioned by the Zonal New

Business Committee, Delhi on the basis of recommendation

of the bank officials vide sanction dated 22.05.2008. One Sh.

Ramesh Koul, DIG PS (Retd) was the guarantor for the said

loan facilities as per agreement of guarantee duly executed

by him towards the bank. The accused borrowers exhausted

the CC limit of Rs.35 lacs in Sept ember, 2008, and

thereafter, Shri Uttam Chand requested the bank vide

application dated 10.9.2008 to allow an overdraft of Rs.10

lacs in the CC account. On the same day, the accused bank

officials conceded to his request and, accordingly, another

account No.01660610000908 was opened in the name of

M/S Shiva Overseas and on the same day, overdraft of Rs.10

lacs was allowed from CC limit and transferred to another

account. The borrowers did not repay the loan in both the

accounts and used the money for their personal ends. As a

OWP No.1577/2013 Page 11 of 19

result of the criminal conspiracy, abuse of official position

and fabrication/forgery of documents, both the loans turned

NPA on 18.12.2009 with a total outstanding of Rs.

50,31,214/- causing undue loss to exchequer and

corresponding undue gain to the accused persons. Further

the concerned bank officials misused their official position

as public servants by processing the said loan/CC limit case

on the basis of fake/false documents, and also failed to get

the lien entered in the revenue records.

11) On the basis of above allegations, FIR

No.RC0042011A0003 CBI/ACB/Jammu was registered for

commission of offences under Section 120-B, 420, 467, 468,

471 of RPC and 5(1)(d) r/w 5(2) of J&K PC Act.

12) During investigation, it was found that the revenue

documents were forged and Mohd. Maqbool, the then Halqa

Patwari, Chack Changerwan, was the author of the said

forged documents. An amount of 40,000/- had been paid to

him as bribe by Ashok Singh Manhas, partner, M/S Shiva

Overseas as revealed by Ashok Singh Manhas. The

statement of Shri Anayat Ali, Halqa Patwari, Chack

Changerwan, revealed that whole area under Survey No.90

min was fully inhabited by constructed houses and no

vacant plot existed in the name of Ashok Singh Manhas in

OWP No.1577/2013 Page 12 of 19

the said Khasra. Record revealed that a total of 36 kanals

and 12 marlas land existed in the name of ancestors of

Ashok Singh Manhas. While 30 Kanals and 15½ marlas was

sold/transferred in the names of other persons, the

remaining portion of the land existed in the name of the

entire joint family. Ashok Singh Manhas was only a co-

sharer in the said property. However, through the forged

revenue records, Ashok Singh Manhas fraudulently claimed

to be in exclusive ownership of the remaining portion of the

land, when, in reality, he was only a minor co-sharer of the

said land, along with other relatives. The record further

reveals that after having sold 30 kanals 15½ marlas land out

of khasra No.90-min, the land measuring 5 kanals 8 marlas

was not entered in the revenue records because the same

was used as the paths/roads by the inhabitants of khasra

No.90-min. There was no plot existing in the said survey

number as shown in the forged revenue record s. The

investigation established that Shri Girdhari Lal, Ex -

Girdawar and Shri Jagdish Singh (since expired) had

prepared the two forged Fard Intekhab and Dasti Khakas

(one for 2 kanals and another for 2 kanals 5 marlas) dated

30.11.08 at the behest of Mohd Maqbool, the then Patwari-

Chak Changarwan. The records of the Nakulat Register

established that forged loan Fard of plot measuring 02

OWP No.1577/2013 Page 13 of 19

kanals under khasra No.90min has been issued by Mohd

Maqbool, the then Halqa Patwari, in the name of Ashok

Singh Manhas and received by him against entry No. 22 in

the said Nakulat Register. The investigation further

established that the said forged Fard Intekhabs/Dasti

Khakas were signed by Mohd Maqbool, the then Halqa

Patwari, Chack Changerwan, Mohd Bashir, the then Naib

Tehsildar, Bhalwal, attested the above forged revenue

documents and forwarded the same for countersignature of

Sh. Gias-ud-din, the then Tehsildar, Jammu.

13) The investigation also revealed that Ashok Singh

Manhas had shown a plot comprising Survey No.14, situated

at Chack Changerwan, the actual owner of which is Sh. Prem

Nath S/o Tirath Ram, as Survey No.90-min to approved

Valuer as his own land and, thus, fraudulently got the wrong

site evaluated. It was also established during investigation

that during pre-sanction visit to the proposed collateral

property undertaken by bank official, accused Ashok Singh

Manhas showed a vacant plot with a boundary wall/iron

gate fixed, at village Chak Changerwan , as his own

comprising Survey No.90 min, though the same fell in

SruveyNo.14 and was not owned by him. The property

identified by the valuer was tallied with the site plan which

OWP No.1577/2013 Page 14 of 19

tallied but Anayat Ali (Patwari Halqa Chack Changerwan,)

after consulting the revenue records, stated that the said

property does not belong to Ashok Singh Manhas and does

not existing in Survey No.90-min. As already mentioned, the

property was owned by Prem Nath. During joint inspection,

Joint Inspection Memo dated 28.07.2011 was drawn and all

the team members signed the same in token of its

correctness and genuineness. The revenue officers also

furnished the original Naqal Jamabandi/detailed report/

location etc. showing the actual position of Survey No.90.

14) After conclusion of the investigation, charge sheet was

filed against Uttam Chand, Ashok Singh Manhas , Mohd.

Maqbool (Patwari) and the empanelled advocate. However, in

terms of order dated 4

th September, 2013, the empanelled

advocate was discharged of the offences, but the petitioner

along with others was charged for commission of offences

under Sections 120-B, 420, 467, 468, 471 of RPC and 5(2)

read with 5(1)(d) of J&K PC Act.

15) The contention of the petitioner is that no offence of

forgery has been committed. The investigation establishes

that the two revenue extracts were issued in favour of the

petitioner showing him to be the owner of land measuring

04 kanals and 05 marlas comprising Survey No.90-min,

OWP No.1577/2013 Page 15 of 19

whereas in terms of the revenue record, Ashok Singh

(petitioner herein) was one of the co-sharers, having minor

share only. The statement of Anayat Ali, Patwari Halqa

Chack Changerwan, reveals that Survey No.90 comprises 36

kanals and 10 marlas of land owned by Romal Singh and

others, in which late Sardar Singh f/o Ashok Singh was one

of the shareholders. After the death of Sardar Singh, his

share was transferred in the name of his legal heirs i.e.

Balbir Singh, Ashok Singh(petitioner), Parshotam Singh,

Jhankar Singh, Surinder Sing (sons) in four equal shares

and daughters, namely, Pushpa Devi and Nirmala Devi in

two equal shares vide mutation No.3027 and out of above

mentioned land, land measuring 30 kanals and 15½ marlas

was already sold to different people, who established a

private colony by constructing houses, boundary walls/

plinths and the remaining 05 kanals and 08 marlas of land

was used as path and road by the owners of the land in the

said survey number, which was not reflected in the revenue

record. Further, as per spot verification, it was found that no

land existed on ground in the name of Ashok Singh Manhas.

16) The accused Patwari issued a Fard Intikhab Jamabandi

(revenue extract) contrary to the official revenue records,

falsely portraying the petitioner as the owner-in-possession

OWP No.1577/2013 Page 16 of 19

of land measuring 04 Kanals and 05 Marlas. Furthermore,

the accused Patwari issued extracts depicting the petitioner

as the exclusive owner of land measuring 4 Kanals and 5

Marlas, whereas the petitioner was merely a minor co -

sharer. In connivance with the petitioner and co-accused,

the Patwari fabricated false documents to enable the

petitioner and his partner to obtain a bank loan by

mortgaging property that was neither owned by the

petitioner nor in existence on the spot.

17) The ‘making of false document’ in terms of section 464,

is an essential ingredient of offence of forgery as defined

under section 463 R.P.C. Illustration (h) and Explanation 1

with illustration (e) to section 464 R.P.C are extracted as

under:

(h) A sells and conveys an estate to Z. A

afterwards, in order to defraud Z of his estate,

executes a conveyance of the same estate to

B, dated six months earlier than the date of the

conveyance to Z, intending it to be believed

that he had conveyed the estate to B before he

conveyed it to Z. A has committed forgery.

Explanation 1. — A man's signature of his own

name may amount to forgery.

(e) A, a trader, in anticipation of insolvency,

lodges effects with B for A 's benefit, and with

intent to defraud his creditors; and in order to

give a colour to the transaction, writes a

promissory note binding himself to pay to B a

sum for value received, and antedates the

note, intending that it may be believed to have

been made before. A was on the point of

OWP No.1577/2013 Page 17 of 19

insolvency. A has committed forgery under the

first head of the definition.

18) Thus, an accused need not forge another person's

signature; signing one's own name can still amount to

forgery under certain circumstances . Furthermore,

illustrations (e) and (h) make it clear that a person can

commit forgery in respect of a document executed by

himself.

19) In the present case, the allegations against the Patwari

are that he issued revenue extracts contrary to the record of

Revenue Department, which were used by the petitioner and

other accused for availing loan. By issuing these fraudulent

revenue extracts in violation of official records, the accused

Patwari committed the offence of making a false document

within the meaning of Section 464 of the R.P.C. The

petitioner has been arrayed as an accused by invoking

section 120-B R.P.C. At this stage, there is nothing to

establish that the accused has not committed any offence of

forgery in connivance with the Patwari.

20) This view of the court finds support from the judgment

of the Bombay High Court in case titled “Bharat Hiralal

Sheth and others Vs. Jaysin Amarsinh Sampat and

OWP No.1577/2013 Page 18 of 19

another”, 1997 CRI. L.J. 2509, where in it has been held as

under:

“11. From these two Illustrations (h) and (e) and

Explanation 1 it will be clear that legislature

intended to cover cases under the offence of forgery

whenever the person was the creator of, a

document even though the document was made by

himself in his own name and signed in his own

name. These two illustrations with Explanation 1,

therefore, make the scope of the definition "Making

a false document" very wide and it cannot be said

that part 1

st

of 464 is the only provision defining

words "Making the false document".

21) This is also the prosecution case that the petitioner

misrepresented the plot under Survey No. 14 as his own

property situated in Survey No. 90-min. Consequently, it

cannot be held that the petitioner is innocent or that no

offence is made out. This act prima facie establishes the

offence of cheating. Furthermore, the authorities relied upon

by the petitioner are distinguishable and inapplicable to the

facts and circumstances of the present case.

22) This Court has examined the order passed by the

learned trial court dated 4

th September, 2013 and is of the

considered view that the learned trial court has rightly

charged the petitioner for the commission of above -

mentioned offences.

23) In view of the above, the present petition is disposed of

with an observation that the issue of constitution of C.B.I

OWP No.1577/2013 Page 19 of 19

shall remain subject to the decision of Hon’ble the Apex

Court, in a pending matter and the trial court shall proceed

with the trial of the case. As the trial has remained stayed

for nearly 13 years, no unnecessary adjournments be

granted to the parties.

(Rajnesh Oswal)

Judge

Srinagar,

30.09.2026

“Bhat Altaf-Secretary”

Whether the judgment is reportable: YES