Authority: High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh at Jammu

Order Date: 30.09.2026

Case Overview

  • Petitioner: Ashok Singh Manhas (partner in M/s Shiva Overseas) filed OWP No.1577/2013 seeking quash of FIR No.RC0042011A0003 dated 30‑05‑2011 and the charge‑sheet filed by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) under Sections 120‑B, 420, 467, 468, 471 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 5(1)(d) read with 5(2) of the J&K Prevention of Corruption Act.
  • Respondents: Union of India & others (including CBI). Represented by Senior Additional Advocate General Ms. Monika Kohli.
  • Background: The FIR alleged that Manhas and his partner Uttam Chand, through their partnership M/s Shiva Overseas, obtained a cash‑credit (CC) limit of Rs 35 lacs from UCO Bank by submitting forged revenue documents claiming ownership of a 4 kanal 5 marla plot (Survey No. 90‑min). The loan was sanctioned on 22‑05‑2008; an additional overdraft of Rs 10 lacs was permitted on 10‑09‑2008. Both loans turned NPA on 18‑12‑2009 with a total outstanding of Rs 50,31,214.
  • Investigation Findings:
  • The petitioner was only a minor co‑sharer of the land; the revenue extracts showing exclusive ownership were forged by the then Halqa Patwari, Mohd Maqbool, who received a bribe of Rs 40,000 from Manhas.
  • Additional forged documents (Fard Intikhab, Dasti Khakas) were prepared by Girdhari Lal and the late Jagdish Singh at Maqbool’s behest and were attested by Naib Tehsildar Mohd Bashir and Tehsildar Gias‑ud‑din.
  • Manhas misrepresented a different plot (Survey No. 14) as the collateral (Survey No. 90‑min) during the bank’s pre‑sanction inspection.
  • The joint inspection memo dated 28‑07‑2011 confirmed the discrepancy.
  • Legal Contentions:
  • The petitioner argued that the allegations did not constitute offences under the cited sections and that the CBI lacked jurisdiction in J&K because the agency is not created by statute and the 1963 resolution is ultra‑vires.
  • The CBI counter‑argued that UCO Bank is a central‑government entity, that J&K had consented to the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act since 1958, and that the constitution of the CBI has been upheld by the Supreme Court in multiple judgments (Vineet Narian, Common Cause, Susheel Kumar Khajuria).
  • The respondent’s senior AAG emphasized that the Guwahati High Court judgment on the CBI’s constitution is stayed by the Supreme Court, and the matter must await that decision.

Final Outcome

  • The Court held that the petition’s challenge to the CBI’s constitution must be deferred until the Supreme Court decides the pending Guwahati High Court matter.
  • It affirmed that the trial court correctly charged the petitioner under Sections 120‑B, 420, 467‑471 RPC and Section 5(1)(d)/5(2) of the J&K Prevention of Corruption Act.
  • The petition was dismissed; further proceedings on the charge‑sheet shall continue, subject to the Supreme Court’s eventual ruling on CBI’s constitutional validity.
  • The Court directed that no unnecessary adjournments be granted, noting the trial has been stayed for nearly 13 years.

Topics: Court Proceedings, Corruption, CBI Jurisdiction