Farooq Abdullah. File
| Photo Credit: Imran Nissar
The Jammu and KashmirHigh Court on Friday (September 26, 2026) rejected the petition of the Enforcement Directorate (ED) to add stolen property charges against National Conference (NC) president and former Jammu and Kashmir Chief Minister Dr. Farooq Abdullah in the J&K Cricket Association (JKCA) scam.
“The prayer of the petitioner [the ED] seeking addition of charges under Sections 411 and 424 of the Ranbir Penal Code (RPC) does not merit acceptance on the basis of the material presently available and is, accordingly, rejected. On the material presently available, the ingredients necessary for framing additional charges under Sections 411 and 424 RPC are not prima facie made out,” held justice Sanjay Parihar, in his order.
Sections 411 and 424 of the RPC deal with offences against property acquired illegally or through manipulation of assets.
The court, however, said this conclusion cannot be construed as placing any fetter upon the statutory jurisdiction of the trial court. “Should any material emerge during the course of trial which prima facie discloses commission of an offence under Sections 411 or 424 RPC, or any other penal provision, it shall remain open to the Trial Court to exercise its power of alteration or addition of charge, strictly in accordance with law and after observing the procedural safeguards available to the accused,” the court said.
Earlier, senior advocate Syed Faisal Qadri, who represents Mr. Abdullah, told the court that the charge-sheet presented by the CBI, the offences disclosed were confined to Sections 120-B, 406 and 409 RPC, “none of which constituted a scheduled offence for the purposes of the PMLA in the circumstances”. “Neither the investigation conducted by the CBI nor the proceedings undertaken by the petitioner, at any earlier stage, disclosed commission of offences under Sections 411 and 424 RPC,” said Mr. Qadri.
Mr. Qadri informed the court that the timing of the (ED) application was significant. “The application was not occasioned by discovery of any fresh material but was moved after the legal basis upon which the petitioner [ED] had asserted jurisdiction under the PMLA was affected by the law declared in Pavana Dibbur. It is, therefore, contended that recourse to Section 216 CrPC was intended to overcome the jurisdictional impediment faced by the petitioner under the PMLA by securing addition of offences which are stated to be scheduled offences,” said Mr. Qadri.
The ED had cited the CBI report on alleged ₹112.13 crores in the JKCA in 2012. According to the ED petition, the CBI found that approximately ₹43.69 crores were allegedly misappropriated when Mr. Abdullah was JKCA president. It said the allegedly diverted funds belonging to the JKCA into personal accounts and thereafter utilized the same for private business dealings.
In 2024, the J&K HC had quashed the chargesheet filed by the ED in the case. Earlier, in 2012, the court had ordered the CBI to investigate the case, and it filed a chargesheet in 2018. In 2019, the ED filed a fresh case and Dr. Abdullah was questioned multiple times.
Published – September 26, 2026 04:00 am IST
