Srinagar, May 16 (JKNS): The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh has refused to quash the FIR registered in connection with the J&K Bank-IFFCO Tokio insurance deal case, observing that the allegations disclosed cognizable offences requiring detailed investigation.
According to details available with news agency JKNS, Justice Sanjay Dhar while hearing the matter upheld the FIR registered by the Anti-Corruption Bureau (ACB) and observed that the role of the petitioners, who were members of the evaluation committee constituted by J&K Bank for selecting an insurance partner, still required deeper investigation.
The court observed that it would only become clear after filing of the final report whether there existed any conspiracy between the accused officials and the alleged beneficiary. The court held that quashing the proceedings at this stage would amount to “scuttling a genuine prosecution,” which is impermissible under law.
As per the FIR registered by the ACB in 2019, allegations had surfaced that J&K Bank entered into an insurance agreement with IFFCO Tokio General Insurance Company in violation of norms, following which a close relative of the then J&K Bank Chairman Parvez Ahmad Nengroo allegedly secured a high-paying appointment in the company.
The investigation had revealed that the beneficiary, identified as Asif Manzoor Beigh, was previously working with Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company on an annual salary package of around Rs 8.75 lakh before resigning shortly after the agreement between J&K Bank and IFFCO Tokio was executed.
The FIR alleged that he was subsequently appointed in IFFCO Tokio on an annual salary package of over Rs 19 lakh, which investigators claimed indicated a pre-planned conspiracy and undue favour linked to the insurance deal.
The ACB had further alleged that the bank suffered financial losses in commission earnings after shifting insurance business from Bajaj Allianz to IFFCO Tokio, while the deal was reportedly approved by the Board of Directors post-facto.
During the proceedings, the petitioners argued that their role was limited to evaluation of bids submitted by insurance companies and that they had no involvement in the appointment of the beneficiary. They also contended that the alleged financial loss calculations by the investigating agency were speculative in nature.
However, the High Court observed that the investigating agency still needed to examine whether the influence and presence of the then chairman during the bid evaluation process had any bearing on the committee’s decision-making.
While dismissing the plea seeking quashing of the FIR, the court granted liberty to the petitioners to approach the court again after the filing of the final report or seek discharge before the trial court if a chargesheet is filed in the case. (JKNS)
