PUSHAP KUMAR TICKOO AND ORS. vs UNION TERRITORY THROUGH SR. SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE AND ANR. (HOME DEPARTMENT)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
AT SRINAGAR
Reserved on: 23.04.2026
Pronounced on:15.05.2026
Uploaded on: 15.05.2026
Whether the operative part
or full judgment is
pronounced: Full
CRM(M) No.265/2024
PUSHAP KUMAR TICKOO & ORS.
...PETITIONERS/APPELLANT(S)
Through:
-
Mr.
Z. A. Shah, Sr. Advocate, with

Mr.
Roshan Khayal
, Advocate.
Vs.
UT OF J&K & ORS. …RESPONDENT(S)
Through:
-
Mr.
Mohsin Qadiri, Sr. AAG, with

Ms. Maha Majeed & Adnan Zahoor, Assisting counsel.

Mr. Numan Zargar, Advocate, vice

Mr. Syed Faisal Qadiri, Sr. Advocate.
CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY DHAR, JUDGE
JUDGMENT
1) The petitioners have challenged FIR No.14/2019 for
offences under Section 5(1)(d) read with 5(2) of J&K
Prevention of Corruption Act and Section 120-B RPC
registered with Police Station, Anti-corruption Bureau (CK),
Srinagar.
2) As per the impugned FIR, on the basis of a source
report, verification was conducted by Anti-corruption
Bureau to look into the allegations that the Jammu and
Kashmir Bank had made an insurance deal with M/S IFFCO
CRM(M) No.265/2024 Page 1 of 22

TOKIO General Insurance Company Ltd. in violation of
norms and in consequence whereof, a close relative of former
Chairman of the J&K Bank has been employed in M/S
IFFCO TOKIO General Insurance Company Ltd. It was
alleged that the J&K Bank Ltd. had entered into an
agreement with M/S IFFCO TOKIO General Insurance
Company Ltd on 12.02.2019 to facilitate appointment of one
Asif Manzoor Beigh, son-in-law of sister of former Chairman
of the J&K Bank, Shri Parvez Ahmad.
3) Upon verification, it was found that prior to execution
of agreement between the J&K Bank Ltd. and M/S IFFCO
TOKIO General Insurance Company Ltd, Shri Asif Manzoor
Beigh was working as Deputy Manager in Bajaj Allianz
General Insurance Company Ltd on an annual salary
package of Rs.8.75 lakhs only. It was found that Shri Beigh,
in order to obtain undue favour and pecuniary advantage
under a pre-planned conspiracy hatched with the then
Chairman of the J&K Bank Ltd., resigned from Bajaj Allianz
General Insurance Company Ltd. on 13.03.2019, a day after
the execution of agreement between the two companies,
whereafter he was appointed in IFFCO Tokio General
Insurance Company Ltd. on an annual salary package of
Rs.19,28,886/ which is two and a half times higher than his
previous package. This, according to the impugned FIR,
CRM(M) No.265/2024 Page 2 of 22

establishes connivance of Shri Parvez Ahmad, the then
Chairman of the J&K Bank Ltd. and others with IFFCO Tokio
General Insurance Company Ltd., as a result of which
beneficiary Asif Manzoor Beigh came to be appointed in
IFFCO Tokio General Insurance Company Ltd. in lieu of the
agreement executed between the two companies. It was also
found that the deal between the Insurance Company and the
Bank was approved by the Board of Directors post-facto.
4) It is further alleged in the impugned FIR that selection
of M/S IFFCO TOKIO General Insurance Company Ltd was
made by awarding higher points to the said Insurance
Company Ltd. in Power Point Presentation with a view to
adjust Asif Manzoor Beigh, a close relative of Shri Parvez
Ahmad Nengroo, the then Chairman of the J&K Bank Ltd.
The verification also revealed that the J&K Bank had already
an arrangement with Bajaj Allianz General Insurance
Company Ltd. since the year 2002 and after the Bank
entered into agreement with IFFCO Tokio General Insurance
Company Ltd., the commission earned by the J&K Bank for
the first quarter of 2019-20 was less by Rs.71.00 lakhs
thereby causing loss to the J&K Bank Ltd. by way of
commission. It is alleged that the then Chairman of the J&K
Bank, Parvez Ahmad Nengroo, connived with Warender
Sinha, MD IFFCO Tokio General Insurance Company Ltd.
CRM(M) No.265/2024 Page 3 of 22

with a view to confer undue benefit upon his relative Asif
Manzoor Beigh thereby abusing his official position and
causing loss to the resources of the J&K Bank Ltd.
5) On the basis of aforesaid findings arrived at during
verification, offences under Section 5(1)(d) read with 5(2) of
the J&K Prevention of Corruption Act and Section 120-B
RPC were found disclosed against Parvez Ahmad Nengroo,
the then Chairman of the J&K Bank Ltd, Warender Sinha,
Managing Director, IFFCO Tokio General Insurance
Company Ltd., beneficiary Asif Manzoor Beigh and others.
After registration of the FIR, investigation of the case was
undertaken by the respondent Investigating Agency.
6) Petitioner No.1 was the Executive President HRD, CPO
of the J&K Bank Ltd. during the period 2018-2019,
petitioner No.2 was the Executive President of the J&K Bank
Ltd. during the period 2018 to May, 2019, petitioner No.3
was the President of Insurance Department of the J&K Bank
Ltd. during the period 2018-2019 whereas petitioner No.4
was the Vice President Law of the J&K Bank Ltd.
7) The petitioners have challenged the impugned FIR and
the proceedings emanating therefrom by pleading that in
terms of Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority
of India Act (IRDA), the J&K Bank Ltd., apart from
conducting its normal banking business, also undertakes
CRM(M) No.265/2024 Page 4 of 22

insurance, both life and non-life. It has been submitted that
J&K Bank Ltd. pursuant to the permission granted by IRDA
and the decision taken by the Board of Directors decided to
engage various companies for providing the facility of
insurance to the loanees. In the year 2002, for the first time,
the services of Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company
Ltd. were engaged by the Bank, in terms whereof the Bank
would seek insurance cover of various transactions between
the Bank and the loanees. The Insurance Company was to
pay commission to the Bank for providing business to IFFCO
Tokio General Insurance Company Ltd.
8) It has been submitted that in the year 2015, an
amendment was carried out in the regulations called
‘Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority of India
Act (Registration of Corporate Agents) Regulations, 2015’
permitting the Bank to engage more than one insurance
companies. Accordingly, in September, 2018, the Bank, in
order to engage further Insurance Companies for providing
facility of non-life insurance to its customers, issued
intimations in leading National Dailies Business Standard
and Economic Times granting an opportunity to General
Insurance Companies to submit their “Request for Proposal”
(RFP) for general insurance business.
CRM(M) No.265/2024 Page 5 of 22

9) It has been submitted that, in all, ten RFP documents
were received from General Insurance Companies including
M/S IFFCO Tokio General Insurance Company Ltd. After
receipt of the RFP documents, the Bank constituted a
committee on 18.09.2018 to open bids/RFP documents. The
petitioners were appointed as members of the said
Committee. It has been submitted the Committee, after
scrutinizing RFP documents, found that only seven bids
deserve active consideration. The Committee awarded
points to RFP submitted by the bidders and all the seven
bidders secured more than 50 points out of 65 points.
Accordingly, they were called for presentation on 24.10.2018
at Corporate Headquarter, Srinagar. M/S IFFCO Tokio
General Insurance Company Ltd. obtained 85.67 points out
of 100 points, thereby emerging as the highest amongst the
lot. The Committee further noticed that out of seven
companies, three companies were prefixed by other banks
like ICICI, HDFC and SBI and, therefore, it was felt by the
Committee that these companies could have access to the
customer database of the J&K Bank Ltd, as such, their
proposals were not considered. Upon overall assessment of
the matter, the Committee requested the Chairman to
sanction the proposal in anticipation of Board approval in
favour of respondent No.2. The said proposal was approved
CRM(M) No.265/2024 Page 6 of 22

by the Board of Directors in its resolution dated 27.12.2018,
pursuant whereto, an agreement came to be executed
between the J&K Bank Ltd. and respondent No.2 on
12.02.2019 along with a Memorandum of Understanding on
the same date.
10) It has been further submitted that the J&K Bank Ltd.
decided that respondent No.2 will be provided insurance
business, to begin with, only in Srinagar and Anantnag
districts with a view to enable them to coordinate their
operations efficiently and effectively. The other Insurance
Company, namely, Bajaj Allianz General Insurance
Company Ltd. continued to have its arrangement with the
Bank in all districts other than Anantnag and Srinagar
Districts.
11) It has been contended that the assessment of alleged
loss made by the Investigating Agency, as projected in the
impugned FIR, is absurd, inasmuch as the same is not based
upon basic knowledge about the insurance business. It has
been contended that the amount of commission that is to be
earned by the Bank is proportionate to the amount of
business which the Bank conducts during a particular
period and it is also proportionate to the rate of premium
collected by the Insurance Company but while calculating
CRM(M) No.265/2024 Page 7 of 22

the alleged loss, the Investigating Agency has not factored in
these aspects.
12) It has been further contended that the petitioners had
limited role of evaluating the bids and making
recommendations and that they had nothing to do with the
engagement of Asif Manzoor Beigh by respondent No.2, as
such, they could not have been roped in the impugned FIR.
It has been contended that the petitioners discharged their
functions as per the existing norms and procedures and
except for evaluation of the bids, they had no role in
engagement of respondent No.2 Insurance Company. It has
been submitted that the respondent Investigating Agency
does not have any material, much less incriminating
material, against the petitioners. It has been further
submitted that the petitioners have not conferred any benefit
upon respondent No.2 nor they have caused any loss to the
Bank. It has been also contended that the investigation
carried out by respondent No.1 is totally fraudulent,
baseless and no case is made out against the petitioners.
13) The respondent Investigating Agency has filed its reply
to the petition, in which it has been submitted that during
investigation of the case, it was found that despite
constitution of four-member Committee for evaluation of
bids, the accused Chairman himself participated and
CRM(M) No.265/2024 Page 8 of 22

associated with the Committee during Power Point
Presentation thereby compromising the integrity and
sovereignty of the Committee. It has been further contended
that during investigation of the case, Power Point
Presentations of the participating companies were evaluated
by a group of experts and as per their report, it was
established that undue favour has been shown to
respondent No.2-Insurance Company in the Power Point
Presentation evaluation by the Committee. It has been
submitted that the Committee has granted 28.50 points to
the accused company and at the same time, awarded less
points to other companies in order to ensure that the
accused company procures the contract.
14) It has been further contended that the Chairman of the
Bank did not associate any external consultant for
evaluation of the bids. It has been contended that the
Committee members, by disfavouring SBI General Insurance
Company Ltd., HDFC ERGO General Insurance Company
Ltd. and ICICI Lombard General Insurance by citing the
reason that their names are prefixed by their respective
banks, have shown bias against these companies. It has
been further contended that respondent No.2-Insurance
Company has been selected as insurance partner without
CRM(M) No.265/2024 Page 9 of 22

approval of Board of Directors which was done only after
decision had already been taken by the Chairman.
15) It has been submitted that during investigation, it was
revealed that the Chairman had allocated two most lucrative
st nd
zones viz. Kashmir Central 1 and Kashmir South 2
exclusively to respondent No.2-Insurance Company thereby
defeating the basic objective of providing choice of insurance
services to the customers. It has been submitted that during
investigation of the case, it was found that the Memorandum
of Understanding executed between the J&K Bank Ltd. and
M/S IFFCO Tokio General Insurance Company Ltd. was
signed on 12.02.2019, whereafter the accused Managing
Director of the Insurance Company appointed close relative
of accused Chairman of the J&K Bank Ltd, namely, Asif
Manzoor Beigh, in his company on the very next date i.e. on
13.02.2019 as a special case establishing quid pro quo. It
has been found during investigation that Asif Manzoor Beigh
had left Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Ltd. in
the middle of March, 2019 as Deputy Manager and his last
salary drawn was Rs.66,819/ per month but he has been
appointed in the respondent Insurance Company with an
annual package of Rs.19.28 lakhs. It has been found by the
Investigating Agency that Asif Manzoor Beigh happens to be
CRM(M) No.265/2024 Page 10 of 22

the husband of Ms. Shazia Ambreen, the niece of Parvez
Ahmad Nengroo, the then Chairman of the J&K Bank Ltd.
16) The Investigating Agency further found that Mr. Arun
Mehrotra, Vice President of M/S IFFCO Tokio General
Insurance Company Ltd. was associated with the contract
executed by the said Insurance Company with the J&K Bank
Ltd. and he was also associated in the interview panel
constituted for holding selection of Asif Manzoor Beigh. It
has also been found that Asif Manzoor Beigh was appointed
in the Insurance Company as a special case and given a high
package on persistent demand of Mr. Arun Mehrotra as a
quid pro quo.
17) I have heard learned counsel for the parties and
perused record of the case including the Case Diary.
18) Before going into merits of the contentions raised by
learned counsel for the parties, it would be apt to
understand the scope of jurisdiction of this Court under
Section 528 of the BNSS to interfere with the investigation of
a case. The basic judgment which has held the field for last
several decades on the issue, is the judgment delivered by
the Supreme Court in the case of State of Haryana and ors.
vs Bajan Lal and ors, 1992 Supp. (1) SCC 335. The Supreme
Court identified the following cases in which FIR/complaint
can be quashed:
CRM(M) No.265/2024 Page 11 of 22

(1) Where the allegations made in the first
information report or the complaint, even if they are
taken at their face value and accepted in their
entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or
make out a case against the accused.
(2) Where the allegations in the first information
report and other materials, if any, accompanying the
FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an
investigation by police officers under Section
156(1) of the Code except under an order of a
Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the
Code.
(3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the
FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in
support of the same do not disclose the commission
of any offence and make out a case against the
accused.
(4) Where the allegations in the FIR do not constitute
a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-
cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a
police officer without an order of a Magistrate as
contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code.
(5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or
complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable
on the basis of which no prudent person can ever
reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground
for proceeding against the accused.
(6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in
any of the provisions of the Code or the Act
concerned (under which a criminal proceeding is
instituted) to the institution and continuance of
CRM(M) No.265/2024 Page 12 of 22

the proceedings and/or where there is a specific
provision in the Code or the Act concerned, providing
efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved
party.
(7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly
attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding
is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for
wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view
to spite him due to private and personal grudge.
19) The Supreme Court in the case of M/S Neeharika,
Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. vs State of Maharashtra and
others, (2021) 19 SCC 401, after surveying its previous
judgments on the issue arrived at the following conclusions:
i) Police has the statutory right and duty under the
relevant provisions of the Code of Criminal
Procedure contained in Chapter XIV of the Code to
investigate into a cognizable offence;
ii) Courts would not thwart any investigation into the
cognizable offences;
iii) It is only in cases where no cognizable offence or
offence of any kind is disclosed in the first information
report that the Court will not permit an investigation to
go on;
iv) The power of quashing should be exercised sparingly
with circumspection, as it has been observed, in the
‘rarest of rare cases (not to be confused with the
formation in the context of death penalty).
v) While examining an FIR/complaint, quashing of which
is sought, the court cannot embark upon an enquiry as
to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the
allegations made in the FIR/complaint;
vi) Criminal proceedings ought not to be scuttled at the
initial stage;
vii) Quashing of a complaint/FIR should be an exception
rather than an ordinary rule;
viii) Ordinarily, the courts are barred from usurping the
jurisdiction of the police, since the two organs of the
CRM(M) No.265/2024 Page 13 of 22

State operate in two specific spheres of activities and
one ought not to tread over the other sphere;
ix) The functions of the judiciary and the police are
complementary, not overlapping;
x) Save in exceptional cases where non-interference
would result in miscarriage of justice, the Court and the
judicial process should not interfere at the stage of
investigation of offences;
xi) Extraordinary and inherent powers of the Court do not
confer an arbitrary jurisdiction on the Court to act
according to its whims or caprice;
xii) The first information report is not an encyclopaedia
which must disclose all facts and details relating to the
offence reported.
Therefore, when the investigation by the police is in
progress, the court should not go into the merits of the
allegations in the FIR. Police must be permitted to
complete the investigation. It would be premature to
pronounce the conclusion based on hazy facts that the
complaint/FIR does not deserve to be investigated or
that it amounts to abuse of process of law. After
investigation, if the investigating officer finds that there
is no substance in the application made by the
complainant, the investigating officer may file an
appropriate report/summary before the learned
Magistrate which may be considered by the learned
Magistrate in accordance with the known procedure;
xiii) The power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is very wide,
but conferment of wide power requires the court to be
more cautious. It casts an onerous and more diligent
duty on the court;
xiv) However, at the same time, the court, if it thinks fit,
regard being had to the parameters of quashing and the
self-restraint imposed by law, more particularly the
parameters laid down by this Court in the cases of R.P.
Kapur (supra) and Bhajan Lal (supra), has the
jurisdiction to quash the FIR/complaint;
xv) When a prayer for quashing the FIR is made by the
alleged accused and the court when it exercises the
power under Section 482 Cr.P.C., only has to consider
whether the allegations in the FIR disclose commission
of a cognizable offence or not. The court is not required
to consider on merits whether or not the merits of the
allegations make out a cognizable offence and the court
has to permit the investigating agency/police to
investigate the allegations in the FIR;
CRM(M) No.265/2024 Page 14 of 22

xvi) The aforesaid parameters would be applicable
and/or the aforesaid aspects are required to be
considered by the High Court while passing an interim
order in a quashing petition in exercise of powers
under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and/or under Article 226 of
the Constitution of India. However, an interim order of
stay of investigation during the pendency of the quashing
petition can be passed with circumspection. Such an
interim order should not require to be passed routinely,
casually and/or mechanically. Normally, when the
investigation is in progress and the facts are hazy and the
entire evidence/material is not before the High Court,
the High Court should restrain itself from passing the
interim order of not to arrest or “no coercive steps to be
adopted” and the accused should be relegated to apply
for anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. before
the competent court. The High Court shall not and as
such is not justified in passing the order of not to arrest
and/or “no coercive steps” either during the
investigation or till the investigation is completed and/or
till the final report/chargesheet is filed under Section
173 Cr.P.C., while dismissing/disposing of the quashing
petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and/or under Article
226 of the Constitution of India. xvii) Even in a case
where the High Court is prima facie of the opinion that an
exceptional case is made out for grant of interim stay of
further investigation, after considering the broad
parameters while exercising the powers under Section
482 Cr.P.C. and/or under Article 226 of the Constitution
of India referred to hereinabove, the High Court has to
give brief reasons why such an interim order is
warranted and/or is required to be passed so that it can
demonstrate the application of mind by the Court and
the higher forum can consider what was weighed with
the High Court while passing such an interim order.
xviii) Whenever an interim order is passed by the High
Court of “no coercive steps to be adopted” within the
aforesaid parameters, the High Court must clarify what
does it mean by “no coercive steps to be adopted” as
the term “no coercive steps to be adopted” can be said
to be too vague and/or broad which can be
misunderstood and/or misapplied.
20) From the foregoing analysis of the legal position, it
comes to the fore that it is only in cases where no cognizable
offence or offence of any kind is disclosed in the first
CRM(M) No.265/2024 Page 15 of 22

information report and the material collected during
investigation of the case that the Court will not permit
investigation to go on. It has to be borne in mind that the
power of quashing should be exercised sparingly with
circumspection, that too in rarest of rare cases. It is also to
be borne in mind that while examining the contents of
FIR/complaint and the material collected in support thereof,
the court cannot embark upon an enquiry as to the reliability
or genuineness or otherwise of the same. The Supreme
Court has time and again cautioned that criminal
proceedings ought not to be scuttled at initial stage and that
the courts cannot usurp jurisdiction of the investigating
agencies.
21) With the aforesaid legal position in mind, let us now
examine the allegations levelled in the impugned FIR and the
material collected by the Investigating Agency during
investigation of the case. As per the material collected by the
Investigating Agency, Shri Asif Manzoor Beigh happens to be
a close relative of Parvez Ahmad Nengroo, the then Chairman
of the J&K Bank Ltd. Both of them have been impleaded as
accused in the case. It has been found by the Investigating
Agency that after the bids were evaluated by the Committee
comprising the petitioners as its members, on their
recommendations respondent No.2-Insurance Company was
CRM(M) No.265/2024 Page 16 of 22

intimated on 01.12.2018 that the said Company has been
selected by the Bank as second insurance partner. The
approval in this regard was granted by the Board of Directors
on 24.12.2018. On 17.12.2018, Shri Asif Manzoor Beigh was
interviewed by respondent No.2-Insurance Company for the
post of General Manager. The investigation has revealed that
initially the Selection Committee approved the selection of
Shri Beigh for an annual package of Rs.15.35 lakhs and this
was agreed to by Mr. Beigh. However, later on, he refused to
join the company and demanded a package of Rs.20.00
lakhs per annum. The matter was re-considered by
respondent No.2-Insurance Company at its various levels
and ultimately on 13.02.2019, Managing Director of
respondent-Insurance Company agreed to hire the services
of accused Asif Manzoor Beigh at an annual package of
Rs.19.28 lakhs per annum. It is stated in the note of
approval that the aforesaid package has been agreed to
under the circumstances as a special case. During the same
period, the agreement between the respondent Insurance
Company and the Bank came to be executed on 12.02.2019,
which is quite proximate to the date on which the offer of
accused Asif Manzoor Beigh for a higher package was
accepted by the respondent Insurance Company under
special circumstances.
CRM(M) No.265/2024 Page 17 of 22

22) It has come in the statements of witnesses examined
by the Investigating Agency during the course of
investigation, who are none else than the officers and
officials of respondent Insurance Company, that it was quite
unusual for the company to revise its decision of offering a
particular package to a selected candidate. Once the
Selection Committee, in its meeting dated 17.12.2018 had
decided to offer a package of Rs.15.35 lakhs per annum to
Mr. Beigh which was accepted by him, the circumstances
under which he resiled from the same and demanded a
higher package which was accepted by the respondent
Insurance Company at its highest level, certainly raises
eyebrows, particularly when all these things have happened
in close proximity with the dates on which the deal between
respondent Insurance Company and the Bank has fructified.
These are strong incriminating circumstances against Mr.
Asif Manzoor Beigh, his close relative Mr. Parvez Ahmad
Nengroo as also against those officers of respondent No.2-
Insurance Company who were associated with the deal.
23) That takes us to the role of the petitioners, who were
the members of the Committee that had evaluated the
proposals of various insurance companies who had
participated in bidding process. It is the contention of the
petitioners that their role was only confined to evaluation of
CRM(M) No.265/2024 Page 18 of 22

the proposals. It has further been contended by learned
Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners, that
assessment of the proposal by a particular Expert
Committee can differ from the assessment of the same
proposal by another Expert Committee. He has contended
that while one Expert Committee may award higher points
to a Power Point Presentation of a bidder but another Expert
Committee may award lesser points to the same Power Point
Presentation. In this regard, learned Senior Counsel has
referred to the record which shows that even the members of
the same Committee have awarded different points to the
Power Point Presentation of the same Insurance Company.
It is being urged that on the basis of award of certain points
by an Expert Committee, its members cannot be stated to
have conspired with the main accused or the beneficiary.
There appears to be, , merit in the aforesaid
prima facie
submission of the learned Senior Counsel.
24) The contention of learned Senior counsel appearing for
the petitioners that the loss in commission earned by the
Bank, as calculated by the Investigating Agency, is
imaginary, also appears to be, prima facie , well-founded
because the amount of commission which the bank would
earn on the premium received by the Insurance Company
would depend upon several factors like the quantum of
CRM(M) No.265/2024 Page 19 of 22

business which the Bank undertakes during a particular
period, the rate of premium fixed by the Insurance Company
and so many other factors which are variable in nature.
25) Having observed as narrated hereinbefore, at the
same time it has to be borne in mind that there are strong
circumstances established on the basis of the material
collected by the Investigating Agency during investigation of
the case to show that there is a close nexus between
appointment of Asif Manzoor Beigh with respondent No.2-
Insurance Company and the award of contract of insurance
to the said company. Thus, offence of criminal misconduct
is disclosed against Shri Parvez Ahmad Nengroo, who has,
prima facie, misused his official position to confer benefit
upon his close relation, Mr. Asif Manzoor Beigh. The
respondent Insurance Company, it appears, has connived in
the same. In fact, the petition filed by the respondent
Insurance Company challenging the impugned FIR has been
dismissed by this Court in terms of judgement dated
17.09.2021 passed in CRM(M) No.315/2019, against which
SLP has been dismissed by the Supreme Court.
26) So far as role of the petitioners, who have facilitated the
selection of respondent Insurance Company as the
insurance agent, is concerned, the same needs a deeper
probe. The issue as to whether on the basis that the
CRM(M) No.265/2024 Page 20 of 22

Committee has awarded particular points to the respondent
Insurance Company during evaluation of its Power Point
Presentation, an inference can be drawn that the petitioners
were part of the criminal conspiracy, has to be probed by the
Investigating Agency in conjunction with the other
circumstances. It has to be probed whether the presence of
the accused Chairman during the evaluation of Power Point
Presentations of the bidder has influenced the decision of the
Committee. The Case Diary produced by the Investigating
Agency does not suggest that the Investigating Agency has
probed these aspects meticulously. Even though the
Investigating Agency has made substantial progress in
completing investigation of the case, yet the issue relating to
involvement or otherwise of the petitioners in the conspiracy
needs further probe. The facts on this aspect of the matter
are still hazy.
27) Once, prima facie, cognizable offences are disclosed at
least against some of the accused involved in the impugned
FIR, it would not be appropriate for this Court to quash the
proceedings against the petitioners at this stage without
permitting the Investigating Agency to have a deeper probe
into their role. It is only after the final report is filed by the
Investigating Agency that things would become clear and it
can be ascertained with certainty whether or not there was
CRM(M) No.265/2024 Page 21 of 22

a conspiracy between the petitioners herein and the main
accused/the beneficiary. Scuttling the investigating at this
stage would amount to quashing a genuine prosecution,
which is impermissible in law.
28) For the foregoing reasons, the petition is dismissed at
this stage, leaving it open to the petitioners to approach this
Court afresh after the final report is filed by the Investigating
Agency before the competent court or to approach the
competent court seeking their discharge in case charge sheet
is filed against them.
29) The Case Diary be returned to learned counsel for the
official respondent.
(Sanjay Dhar)
Judge

SRINAGAR
15.05.2026
“Bhat Altaf-Secy”
Whether the Judgement is speaking: YES

Whether the Judgement is reportable: YES

CRM(M) No.265/2024 Page 22 of 22