2013 Supreme(Raj) 2143
RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
Sandeep Mehta, J.
Raxpal Sihag - Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan & Ors - Respondent
S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No. 1019 of 2013.
Decided On : 25-11-2013
Advocates:
For the Petitioner:Nishant Motsara, Advocate.
For the Respondents: Rajiaxmi Choudhary, Public Prosecutor
The police and the court lack jurisdiction to investigate and take cognizance of offenses under the Representation of People Act in the absence of a complaint filed by the Returning Officer.
Headnote:
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE, 1973 - SECTION 156(3) - SECTION 195(1)(A) - REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE ACT - SECTION 120B, 467, 468, 471 - FINAL REPORT - ACCEPTANCE - REINVESTIGATION - FRAUDULENT INDUCTION OF NAME IN VOTER LIST - FALSE DECLARATION IN NOMINATION PAPERS - VOLUNTARY RETIREMENT - PENDING DEPARTMENTAL INQUIRY - CERTIFICATE OF NON-PENDENCY - PRELIMINARY INQUIRY - JURISDICTION OF POLICE AND COURT - COMPLAINT BY RETURNING OFFICER - SUMMARY DISMISSAL OF PETITION.
Fact of the Case:
Petitioner filed a complaint against respondents, public servants, alleging fraudulent induction of their names in the voter list, preparation of fraudulent retirement orders, forgery of valuable securities, and false declaration for contesting elections. Police investigated and filed a negative Final Report. Petitioner protested, alleging false declaration in nomination papers by respondent Naurang Lal regarding retirement from service. The Trial Court accepted the Final Report, holding that the complaint disclosed only offenses under the Representation of People Act, which could only be filed by the Returning Officer. The revisional Court also rejected the petitioner's revision.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that there was no material on record to entertain allegations against respondent Parmeshwari Devi. Regarding respondent Naurang Lal, the court held that the pendency of a preliminary inquiry was not a reason to deny voluntary retirement. The certificate issued under Rule 250(c) of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, stating no departmental proceedings were pending against him, was not fraudulent. The remaining allegations regarding false declaration could only be acted upon if the Returning Officer had filed a complaint under Section 195(1)(a) of the Cr.P.C., which was not done.
Issues: 1. Whether the Trial Court erred in accepting the Final Report filed by the Police? 2. Whether the revisional Court erred in rejecting the petitioner's revision? 3. Whether the allegations against the respondents disclosed offenses under the Indian Penal Code or the Representation of People Act? 4. Whether the certificate issued regarding non-pendency of departmental proceedings was fraudulent?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Trial Court did not err in accepting the Final Report as the complaint disclosed only offenses under the Representation of People Act, which could only be filed by the Returning Officer. 2. The revisional Court did not err in rejecting the petitioner's revision as there was no material on record to support the allegations. 3. The allegations against the respondents disclosed offenses under the Representation of People Act, which could only be filed by the Returning Officer. 4. The certificate issued regarding non-pendency of departmental proceedings was not fraudulent as it referred to the non-pendency of departmental proceedings under Rule 16 or 17 of the C.C.A. Rules, which was a prerequisite for voluntary retirement.
Final Decision: The petition was dismissed, and the record of the Court below was ordered to be sent back forthwith.
JUDGMENT
1. - The instant misc. petition has been filed by the petitioner against the order dated 16.2.2013 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Churu in revision whereby the learned Sessions Judge affirmed the order dated 16.5.2005 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Churu accepting the Final Report filed by the Police Officers of the Police Station Kotwali, Churu after investigation of F.I.R. No. 73/2004 .
2. The instant misc. petition has been filed by the petitioner complainant against the a foresaid orders passed by the subordinate Courts seeking a direction for reinvestigation/further investigation of the case of the grounds proposed by the petitioner and on the basis of the documents available with him.
3. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the petitioner submitted a complaint in the Court of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Churu on 15.4.2004. As per the allegations levelled in the complaint, the respondents Naurang Lal and Parmeshwari Devi both being public servants used to reside at Government allotted quarters at the Churu Town. They fraudulently managed the induction of their names in the votes list prepared for the villages. It was also alleged that the retirement orders were prepared fraudulently by these accused and thus, valuable securities were forged. It was also alleged that a false declaration was made by these persons of the purpose of contesting elections.
4. The complaint thus submitted by the complainant was forwarded to the Police Station Kotwali, Churu under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. F.I.R. No. 73/2004 was registered at the said Police Station. The matter was thoroughly investigated and thereafter, the Police filed a negative Final Report in the case. The complainant appeared before the Trial Court and filed a protest petition. It was alleged by the complainant that the respondent Smt. Parmeshwari Devi contested the election of the Zila Parishad and the Zila Pramukh and for that purpose, fraudulently got her name inducted in the voter list of the village Khasoli by concealing the fact that she was residing in a Government quarter at Churu. It was alleged that the respondent Naurang Lal was a teacher and he gave a false declaration in the nomination papers regarding he being retired from service. The Police investigated the matter and found that no prima-facie offences under Sections 467, 468, 471 and 120B of the I.P.C. were disclosed from the admitted allegations of the complainant. For the remaining offences under the Representation of People Act, the complaint could have been filed by the Returning Officer only. Accordingly, the Final Report was submitted in the subordinate Court gave due consideration to the material available on the record and holding that the complaint in relation to the allegations levelled by the complainant petitioner disclosed only offences under the R.P. Act and could only be filed by the Returning Officer, proceeded to accept the Final Report. The complainant did not rest satisfied with the acceptance of the Final Report and challenged the order by way of a revision. The revisional Court too rejected the revision filed by the complainant and hence, this misc. petition.
5. Shri Nishant Motsara learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the respondent Naurang Lal contested the e lection for the Legislative Assembly and for that purpose, he sought voluntary retirement from the department, wherein he was working. While seeking voluntary retirement, Naurang Lal gave a false declaration regarding non-pendency of any departmental inquiry against him. Shri Motsara vehemently contended that the Dy. Director, Education. Department issued a letter dated 7.11.2003 mentioning that the case of Naurang Lal Verma for selection scale could not be considered as some preliminary inquiry was reported to be pending against him. Learned counsel submitted that despite the pendency of the inquiry, a certificate was issued by the Dy. Director, Education Department, Ch
Click Here to Read the rest of this document
Back
