SRINAGAR: The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh has refused to quash an Anti-Corruption Bureau (ACB) FIR registered in connection with the controversial J&K Bank-IFFCO Tokio insurance deal, observing that the allegations disclose cognizable offences and require a deeper investigation.
Justice Sanjay Dhar passed the judgment while hearing CRM(M) No. 265/2024 titled Pushap Kumar Tickoo & Ors Vs UT of J&K & Ors. Senior Additional Advocate General Mohsin S. Qadri appeared on behalf of the Anti-Corruption Bureau.
The court held that the role of the petitioners, who were members of the evaluation committee constituted by J&K Bank for selecting an insurance partner, still requires detailed probe by the investigating agency.
According to the FIR registered by the ACB in 2019, allegations surfaced that J&K Bank entered into an insurance agreement with IFFCO Tokio General Insurance Company in alleged violation of norms, following which a close relative of former J&K Bank Chairman Parvez Ahmad Nengroo was appointed in the company on a substantially higher salary package.
The court observed that the investigation revealed that Asif Manzoor Beigh, related to former chairman Parvez Ahmad Nengroo, was appointed by IFFCO Tokio shortly after the agreement between the insurance company and J&K Bank was executed. Investigators alleged that the appointment was made as a “special case” and was closely linked to the insurance contract awarded to the company.
As per the judgment, the ACB alleged that the then chairman and officials of the insurance company conspired to confer undue benefit upon Beigh, while the bank allegedly suffered financial losses in commission earnings after shifting insurance business from Bajaj Allianz to IFFCO Tokio.
The petitioners, who were senior officials of J&K Bank at the relevant time, argued before the court that their role was limited to evaluation of bids submitted by insurance companies and that they had no role in the appointment of Asif Manzoor Beigh. They further contended that the financial loss assessment made by the investigating agency was “imaginary” and not based on proper insurance business calculations.
During the proceedings, the court observed that there appeared to be prima facie merit in the petitioners’ contention that differing evaluations by expert committees could not automatically establish criminal conspiracy. The court also noted that the alleged commission loss calculations appeared uncertain and dependent upon several business-related factors.
However, Justice Dhar observed that there were “strong incriminating circumstances” indicating a close nexus between the insurance deal and Beigh’s appointment, warranting continuation of the investigation.
The High Court further stated that the investigating agency still needs to examine whether the presence and influence of the then chairman during the bid evaluation process had any impact on the committee’s decision-making.
Refusing to interfere at the present stage, the court said that quashing the proceedings at this point would amount to “scuttling a genuine prosecution,” which is impermissible in law.
Accordingly, the petition was dismissed, with liberty granted to the petitioners to approach the court again after the filing of the final report or seek discharge before the competent court in case a chargesheet is filed.
