1. Through the medium of the instant petition, filed under Article 226
of the Constitution of India, the petitioner/accused has sought the
quashment of the FIR No. 15/2010, registered by Police Station Vigilance
Organization (now ACB), Jammu, against him, on the allegation of the
commission of offence punishable under Section 5 (2) read with Section
5(1)(e) of the J&K Prevention of Corruption Act, Svt. 2006 (now repealed
and replaced by Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 Central and
hereinafter referred to as PC Act), on the grounds inter alia that the
registration of the same is an abuse of process and statutory powers by the
respondent. That before the registration of the case FIR in question, the
Police Station Vigilance Organization, Jammu (hereinafter referred to
“VOJ” for short), had already registered a case FIR against him under No.
67/1998 dated 22.09.1998, covering almost the same allegations. That the
investigation in the said earlier case FIR of 1998, continued till 2003, when
the Investigating Agency could not substantiate the allegations against him
and consequently the investigation in the said case FIR was closed as “Not
Proved”. That the allegations in both case FIR numbers are substantially
identical and, as such, the respondent organization was not legally
competent to investigate the same allegations twice. That the respondent
organization has nowhere stated in the final report/challan, culminating
from the impugned case FIR No. 15/2010 of VOJ and pending before the
learned Special Court, that the properties mentioned therein have been
created after 2003, when the investigation in the earlier FIR was concluded
as “Not Proved”. That the investigation conducted in the earlier case FIR
has a direct bearing on the second case arising from the investigation in
impugned Case FIR No. 15/2010. That the allegations against him
regarding his assets being disproportionate to his known sources of
income, stood already investigated and, as such, no further investigation
was warranted under law. That it is not the case of the respondent
organization that earlier FIR NO. 67/1998, was further investigated but the
impugned case happens to be a fresh independent case FIR bearing No.
15/2010. That the impugned case FIR is outcome of a malafide exercise of
the power by the respondent, which has jeopardized the liberty as well as
career of the petitioner/accused. That the petitioner/accused has no other
remedy available to him under law and that he has not earlier filed a
similar petition before this Court or before the Hon’ble Supreme Court.