Chandigarh: The District and Sessions Court in Panchkula has transferred two interconnected cross-FIRs involving retired IAS officer Ashok Khemka and IAS officer Sanjeev Verma from the Chief Judicial Magistrate (CJM) court to a Special Court designated to hear cases under the Prevention of Corruption Act.
District and Sessions Judge Sanjay Sandhir passed the order, holding that the presence of offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, affects the jurisdiction of the Magistrate court to deal with the police cancellation or closure reports.
The matters have now been assigned to Special Judge Bikramjit Aroura, with the parties directed to appear before the court on September 21, 2026.
Why Were the Cases Transferred?
The Sessions Court relied on Supreme Court precedents while deciding that a Magistrate cannot decide cancellation or closure reports in cases involving offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act where a designated Special Judge has jurisdiction.
The court’s decision means the police reports seeking closure of the two cases will now be considered by the Special Court instead of the CJM court.
The development is significant because both FIRs involve allegations concerning public servants and provisions of the anti-corruption law.
Read Also: Why The Supreme Court Has Stopped Appointments Of Teachers Without Required Qualifications
Cross-FIRs Date Back to 2022
The two cases originated from a high-profile dispute linked to appointments and alleged irregularities in the Haryana State Warehousing Corporation (HSWC).
FIR No. 170 was registered against Ashok Khemka and others over alleged illegalities and recruitment-related irregularities during Khemka’s tenure as Managing Director of HSWC.
The case included charges under Section 420 of the IPC and provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act.
The second case, FIR No. 171, was registered following a complaint by Khemka against Sanjeev Verma, who was then Managing Director of HSWC, and advocate Ravinder Kumar.
Khemka alleged criminal conspiracy, document tampering and the filing of false charges driven by malice. Provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act were subsequently added to this case as well.
Haryana Government Denied Ex-Post Facto Sanction
A key issue in the proceedings is the absence of sanction under Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act.
The Haryana Government declined to grant ex-post facto sanction in relation to both officers. Section 17A provides protection to public servants by requiring prior approval before an inquiry or investigation into certain decisions taken in the discharge of official duties.
Following the denial of sanction, police filed cancellation or untraced reports in both cases.
However, the closure of the cases did not end the dispute.
Khemka Challenges Closure Report
Ashok Khemka filed a protest petition against the closure of the FIR concerning Sanjeev Verma and others.
Through the petition, Khemka has sought a detailed investigation into what he describes as a malicious and false complaint against him.
The Special Court will now have to examine the police cancellation reports as well as Khemka’s objections before deciding the next course of action.
The court may also consider the locus standi of the original complainants while dealing with the proceedings.
What Happens Next?
With the cases transferred, the Special Court will examine the legal and procedural issues surrounding the closure reports and protest petition.
The parties have been directed to appear before Special Judge Bikramjit Aroura on September 21, 2026.
The proceedings could determine whether the police closure reports are accepted or whether the matter requires further examination.
A Long-Running Administrative Dispute
The cross-FIRs stem from a period when Khemka and Verma were associated with the Haryana State Warehousing Corporation and became part of a wider dispute over alleged irregularities and official decisions.
The latest order does not decide the allegations against either officer. Instead, it determines the appropriate judicial forum to examine the police reports and related objections.
The transfer therefore marks a procedural development rather than a finding of guilt or innocence.
Why the Transfer Matters
The case highlights the special jurisdiction attached to offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act. By transferring the matters to a designated Special Court, the Sessions Court has ensured that the closure reports will be considered by the forum it considers legally competent to deal with such proceedings.
The September 21 hearing is expected to bring the two long-running cross-FIRs before the Special Court and could clarify whether the cases will formally close or move ahead for further judicial consideration.
Read Also: Why Has Delhi Not Formed Hysterectomy Committees? High Court Seeks Answers
