Hon'ble MEHTA, J.—The instant misc. petition has been preferred by the petitioners seeking quashing of the F.I.R. No. 17/2011 registered at Police Station Udaimandir, District Jodhpur for the offences under Section 419, 420, 465, 467 and 468 IPC on the basis of a complaint filed by the respondent No. 2 complainant as forwarded to the Police under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C.

2. Succinctly stated the facts of the case are that the respondent No. 2 complainant filed a complaint in the court of the learned Judicial Magistrate alleging interalia that the petitioner No. 1 filed a nomination for contesting the elections for the post of a Member of the Municipal Corporation in the year 2009 and after elections, was declared elected from the Ward No. 14. The respondent No. 2 filed the instant complaint with the allegation that the petitioner No. 1 Smt. Amita Trivedi conspired with the petitioner No. 2 her husband Shri Rajesh Trivedi and for the purpose of contesting the election deliberately disclosed false facts in the nomination papers. It was alleged that the petitioner No. 1 fraudulently mentioned the name of her father-in-law in the column set apart in the nomination paper for the husband's name. It was further stated that the petitioners committed the offences of cheating, forgery and breach of trust.

3. The complaint thus filed by the respondent No. 2 was forwarded to the Police Station Udaimandir, Jodhpur for investigation under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., where F.I.R. No. 17/11 has been registered for the aforesaid offences. The petitioners have now approached this Court seeking quashing of the F.I.R. registered against them.

4. Shri Mahesh Bora, learned senior counsel assisted by Shri Nishant Bora, argued on behalf of the petitioners that ex-facie, the allegations, which have been made the foundation of the F.I.R. do not disclose any cognizable offence whatsoever. It was submitted that even if the allegations set out in the F.I.R. are considered to be true at their highest also then too, the remedy available to the complainant was to challenge the petitioner No. 1's election by filing an election petition. It was submitted that merely by the act of mentioning allegedly wrong facts in the nomination papers, it cannot be concluded that the petitioners have committed the offence of cheating, breach of trust or forgery. It was further submitted that the complainant cannot be said to be the person, who was cheated in this case. Shri Bora further urged that for the sake of arguments even if the allegations of the complainant are accepted to be true then too, the offence, which at best can be said to be committed by the accused would be covered by Section 177 of the IPC i.e. furnishing false information to a public servant. It is contended that even if the said offence is made out, the prosecution of the petitioners is barred by Section 195(1)(a) of the Cr.P.C. because no complaint has been filed by the concerned public servant in this case. It was, therefore urged that ex-facie, the F.I.R. impugned does not disclose any cognizable offence whatsoever so as to permit the continuance of investigation by the investigating agency in this case.

5. Per contra, the learned Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel appearing for the complainant Shri N.K. Bohra vehemently opposed the arguments advanced on behalf of the petitioners and submitted that the petitioner No. 1 deliberately and fraudulently mentioned the name of her father-in-law in place of the name of her husband in the nomination paper. It was submitted that the petitioner No. 1's husband i.e. petitioner No. 2 Shri Rajesh Trivedi is employed in the Dainik Bhaskar newspaper. It was strenuously contended that the employer of the petitioner No. 2 has barred relatives of its employees from contesting elections as per the restrictions imposed by the Press Council Act and that is why, deliberately in order to cheat, the husband's name was deliberately substituted with the father-in-law's name by t

Click Here to Read the rest of this document