In a significant judgment reaffirming the legal threshold for framing charges in criminal proceedings, the High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh has clarified that courts must rely solely on the material submitted by the prosecution when evaluating whether charges should be framed.
The Court also cautioned against transforming this preliminary stage into a “mini trial.”Justice Sanjay Dhar, presiding over the matter, observed that: “At the stage of framing of charge, the court need only determine whether the evidence collected by the prosecution creates a presumption of guilt. Even a strong suspicion is enough to proceed.”Relying on the Supreme Court’s ruling in Shashikant Sharma & Ors. vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 1037, the bench held that if the prosecution’s materials fail to establish the essential ingredients of an offence, the court is not compelled to frame charges.Background of the CaseThe ruling stemmed from a petition filed by Kiran Wattal, a former Commissioner of Jammu Municipal Corporation, challenging the Special Judge Anti-Corruption Court’s decision to frame charges against him. The charges, under Section 5(1)(d) read with Section 5(2) of the J&K Prevention of Corruption Act and Section 120-B of the Ranbir Penal Code (RPC), were based on allegations of irregularities in granting building permission to two private individuals.
The controversy began with an application submitted by Kuldeep Kumar and Pardeep Kumar, seeking approval to build a mixed-use complex on land leased to them by Mandir Sh. Raghunath Ji Maharaj. The Anti-Corruption Bureau (ACB), Jammu, alleged that the land in question was temple property and the lease documents lacked critical details like the khasra number, allegedly violating Maharaja’s Ailan No. 35, which restricted sale or mortgage of temple-owned land.The ACB further claimed that Wattal, on the last day of his tenure, approved the construction permit despite formal objections from revenue officials and without routing the matter through the Building Operations Controlling Authority (BOCA) or the Urban Transport Environment Improvement Committee (UTEIC).Defense and High Court AnalysisWattal contended that the lease deeds were properly executed and backed by a civil court decree and revenue records that identified the beneficiaries as legal successors of the original lessee.
He further argued that the project was under 4,000 sq. ft.—below the threshold requiring approval from BOCA or UTEIC—making the prosecution’s case baseless.In its analysis, the Court referred to key precedents such as:Union of India v. Prafulla Kumar Samal (1979)Sajjan Kumar v. CBI (2010)Ghulam Hassan Beigh v. Mohammad Maqbool Magrey (2022)The Court reiterated that although a strong suspicion may justify the framing of charges, such suspicion must stem from evidence—not conjecture. It further found that Ailan No. 35 did not prohibit leasing of temple land but only its permanent alienation, and thus the trial court had misconstrued its applicability.The Court also noted that the absence of BOCA meetings during the relevant period and the non-mandatory status of UTEIC clearance for projects below 20,000 sq. ft. further undermined the prosecution’s claims.Conclusion and VerdictGiven the supporting documentation, including a valid civil decree, revenue entries, and procedural approvals, the High Court concluded that the charges against Wattal lacked merit. Consequently, the Court discharged the petitioner, setting aside the trial case proceeding.
