Jammu & Kashmir High Court – Srinagar Bench
Tariq Ahmad Ganie vs Directorate Of Enforcement Th.Its … on 31 March, 2026
Sr. No. 106
Supp. Cause List
HIGH C0URT 0F JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
AT SRINAGAR
CRM(M) 145/2026 CrlM(342/2026)
TARIQ AHMAD GANIE ...Petitioner(s)/appellant(s)
Through: Mr. Syed Faisal Qadiri, Sr. Adv. with
Mr. Mir Adnan Zahoor, Adv.
Vs.
DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT TH.ITS DEPUTY DIRECTOR ...Respondent(s)
Through: MR. T. M. SHAMSI, DSGI WITH
MS YASMEEN JAN, ADV.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE MOHD YOUSUF WANI, JUDGE
ORDER
31.03.2026
1. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner in respect of
the matter.
2. Through the medium of the instant petition having been
filed in terms of the provisions of Section 528 of
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (hereinafter
referred to as BNSS for short), the petitioner has sought
the quashment of the cognizance order dated
24.06.2023 passed by the Court of learned Principal
Sessions Judge, Srinagar (hereinafter referred to as trial
court for short) on Complaint No. 811 of 2023 CNR No.
JKSG010008422023 titled “Directorate of Enforcement,
Government of India, Represented by its Assistant
Director, Dinesh Kumar Verma, Srinagar Zonal Office Vs.
Tariq Ahmad Ganaie and Ors.” along with consequential
proceedings, instituted under Sections 44 and 45 read
with Sections 3 and 4 of the Prevention of Money
Laundering Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as PMLA
Act) on the main ground that the Investigating Agency
i.e., the Enforcement Directorate did not obtain the prior
sanction in terms of Section 197 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure 1973 (already repealed but applicable in the
case and hereinafter referred to as Code for short) as
required for taking cognizance on the complaint by the
trial court.
3. The case of the petitioner in nutshell is that he is a
public servant presently employed as a Junior Engineer
with the Jammu & Kashmir Power Development
Department. That he is aggrieved of the impugned order
dated 24.06.2023 passed by the learned trial court
whereby cognizance has been taken in a prosecution
complaint instituted by the Respondent-Directorate
under Sections 44 and 45 read with Sections 3 and 4 of
the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, bearing
Complaint No. 811 of 2023 CNR No.
JKSG010008422023. That by virtue of the said
prosecution complaint, the respondent has arrayed the
petitioner herein as Accused No. 1 along with nine other
accused persons. That the prosecution complaint is
premised upon allegations originally leveled by the Anti-
Corruption Bureau Jammu and Kashmir against the
petitioner, alleging abuse of official position and receipt
of illegal gratification from contractors during the period
when the petitioner was posted on deputation as
Assistant Manager (Electric) with the Jammu & Kashmir
Housing Board. That the said allegations culminated in
the registration of FIR No. 18 of 2020 dated 13.10.2020
at Police Station ACB, Srinagar for offences under
Sections 5(1) (d) and 5(1)(e) read with Section 5(2) of the
Jammu and Kashmir Prevention of Corruption Act,
2006 against the petitioner. Treating the allegations
contained in the aforesaid predicate FIR as constituting
a scheduled offence under the Prevention of Money
Laundering Act, 2002, the Respondent-Directorate
proceeded to register ECIR No. ECIR/SRZO/01/2021
dated 31.03.2021 and thereafter initiated proceedings
under the said Act. That the allegations attributed to the
petitioner by the Respondent-Directorate as well as the
predicate agency arise out of acts allegedly committed in
the course of discharge of his official duties as a public
servant. Notwithstanding the aforesaid position, the
learned Special Court proceeded to take cognizance of
the prosecution complaint in the absence of the
requisite sanction for prosecution. That the impugned
cognizance order, therefore, suffers from a patent legal
infirmity inasmuch as the prosecution of the petitioner
has been initiated by the Respondent-Directorate
without obtaining the mandatory sanction contemplated
under law under Section197, Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973. That the proceedings before the
learned Special Court are presently pending at the pre-
trial stage, where arguments on the question of framing
of charges are yet to be heard.
4. Mr. T. M. Shamsi, learned Deputy Solicitor General of
India, representing the respondent was also heard in the
matter, who submitted that the cognizance order dated
24.06.2023 passed by the learned trial court on the
complaint of the respondent does not suffer from any
illegality or incorrectness as the sanction in terms of
Section 197 of the Code was not at all needed in the
facts and circumstances of the case as the
petitioner/accused facing trial before the learned trial
court is alleged to have amazed property
disproportionate to his known source of income by
misuse of his official position which was none of his
public duties. He submitted that it is well settled
position of the law that sanction in terms of the
Provisions of Section 197 of the Code is required only
when an Act or omission constituting an offence is
alleged to have been done in the discharge of bona fide
public duty. He submitted that it was none of the official
duties of the petitioner to commit criminal mis-conduct
by misuse of his official position as an Engineer.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner however, in
rebuttal submitted that sanction in terms of Section 197
of the Code was a mandatory requirement for taking
cognizance on the complaint of the respondent. The
learned Senior Counsel submitted that it is well settled
position of the law that if a public servant in exercise of
the authority and power vested in him does any act
allegedly leading to the commission of an offence, the
sanction in terms of Section 197 of the Code is needed
to be obtained and Court cannot take cognizance on a
complaint or a police report in the absence of such prior
sanction. The learned counsel further submitted that it
is well settled that the sanction in terms of Section 197
of the Code is very much required even for taking
cognizance on a complaint filed in terms of PMLA Act.
6. In the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is
of the opinion that it may meet the ends of justice in
case the learned trial court itself is asked to address the
issue by revisiting and reconsidering its earlier
cognizance order dated 24.06.2023, in exercise of the
powers vested in the said court in terms of Provisions of
Section 403 BNSS corresponding to Section 362 of the
Code after hearing both the parties in respect of the
issue.
7. Accordingly, the instant petition is disposed of at this
stage with the direction to the learned trial court to
consider and address the issue involved in the petition,
after affording an opportunity of hearing to both the
parties in respect of the same and to pass appropriate
orders, if any, justified under law. It is clarified that the
learned trial court, in exercise of the powers vested in it
in terms of Provisions of Section 403 of the BNSS,
corresponding to Section 362 of the Code, can modify or
alter any judgment or order which has not attained
finality. However, the petitioner shall file a formal
application in respect of his grievance before the learned
trial court.
8. Disposed of.
(MOHD YOUSUF WANI)
JUDGE
SRINAGAR
31.03.2026
“Sakeena”
