The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh quashed FIR No. 05/2021 dated 03.02.2021 and the ensuing charge-sheet filed by the Anti-Corruption Bureau, Jammu, against the petitioners under Section 5(1)(d) read with Section 5(2) of the J&K Prevention of Corruption Act, SVT 2006 and Section 120-B RPC. The FIR was based on the allegation that the Settlement Officer, in conspiracy with other revenue officials, illegally attested Mutation Nos. 558, 559 and 564 during settlement operations under Section 121 of the J&K Land Revenue Act, conferring ownership rights over 116 kanals and 12 marlas of land in violation of Section 28-A of the Agrarian Reforms Act and Government Order S-432 of 1996, and causing loss of stamp duty.
The Court held:
1. The mutations were attested by the Settlement Officer vested with statutory authority under SRO 314 dated 27.07.1999 during duly notified settlement proceedings under Section 22 of the Land Revenue Act. The correctness of the exercise of this quasi-judicial power was subject to appellate review, and the Divisional Commissioner, by order dated 22.05.2025, declined to interfere with the mutations, directing only recovery of deficient stamp duty and associated charges.
2. An erroneous or irregular exercise of statutory jurisdiction, even if legally unsustainable, does not by itself constitute criminal misconduct under the Prevention of Corruption Act. Criminal liability requires the additional element of culpable intent — dishonest or corrupt abuse of official position. No allegation of illegal gratification or bribery was made against the petitioners or the revenue officers.
3. The prosecution’s case rested substantially on its own interpretation of Section 121 and the applicability of Section 28-A of the Agrarian Reforms Act. However, the petitioners claimed possession since 1987, prior to the mutation under Section 8 in 1992, and the Hidayat Bundobust, 2005 recognized oral gifts during settlement subject to proof of possession. The Divisional Commissioner’s order implicitly accepted this position.
4. A mutation entry in revenue records does not create or extinguish title; it is primarily for fiscal purposes [(1996) 6 SCC 223; (2015) 14 SCC 784]. The existence of restrictions on alienation does not, without more, establish dishonest intent by the recording officer.
5. The filing of a charge-sheet does not oust the High Court’s jurisdiction to quash proceedings where the foundational allegations, even taken at face value, do not disclose the essential ingredients of the offences. Reliance was placed on C.K. Jaffer Sharief v. State (2013) 1 SCC 205 and a coordinate bench decision (JKJ Online 88119) holding that procedural violations and resulting pecuniary advantage, without proof of dishonest intention, do not constitute criminal misconduct.
