1. By this criminal writ petition, a challenge is made to the FIR No. 58/2015 lodged with Police Station - Ramgarh Pachwara, Dausa for offence under sections 420, 467, 468, 471

and 120B IPC.

2. Learned counsel submits that the FIR has been lodged in respect of an election of panchayat, that too, regarding qualification of the petitioner. It is a dispute of pre-election disqualification. The nomination form was filled and examined by the Returning Officer. He did not find any objectionable material about the qualification of the petitioner. The petitioner accordingly contested the election and remained successful. The contesting candidate then challenged the election by an election petition. As per rule 80 of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj (Election) Rules, 1994, an election petition has to be presented within thirty days. The FIR in question was lodged after filing of the election petition. It is nothing but to circumvent the proceedings of the election petition in violation of Article 243-O of the Constitution of India. The Constitution bars challenge to the election save by an election petition. If the investigation in pursuance to the FIR is continued, it will offend Article 243-O of the Constitution.

3. The allegation against the petitioner is regarding submission of forged documents relating to educational qualification. The issue aforesaid is pending consideration in the election petition. The FIR is not permissible for an election dispute. Reference of the judgment of this court in the case of “Smt. Sameera Bano & etc versus State of Rajasthan & ors”, [AIR 2007 Rajasthan 168] has been given. In the aforesaid judgment, Larger Bench of this court held that pre-election disqualification can be adjudicated only in the election petition and no action can be taken by the State government under rule 23 of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Rules, 1996 (for short 'the Rules of 1996') read with section 39 of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 (for short “the Act of 1994”). If the FIR is not quashed, it can have ill consequence on an elected person in case of arrest or otherwise. It is by none-else but one of the candidates contested the election along with the petitioner and lost. Thus, impugned FIR deserves to be quashed. The arguments are supported by the judgment in the case of “State of Haryana & ors versus Ch. Bhajan Lal & ors.”, [1992 Suppl (1) SCC 335]. Petitioner's case falls in criteria No.7 laid down in the judgment of Ch.Bhajan Lal (supra). Reference of the judgment of Hon'be Supreme Court in the case of “VM Shah versus State of Maharashtra & anr.”, [(1995) 5 SCC 767] has also been given to show that pending civil litigation, criminal case cannot be allowed.

Learned PP has opposed the petition.

4. I have considered rival submissions of the parties and perused the record.

5. The challenge is made to the FIR with a prayer to quash it. It is on many grounds. The first ground raised by learned counsel for petitioner is in reference to Article 243-O of the Constitution of India. The said Article is quoted hereunder for ready reference -

“243-O. Bar to interfere by courts in electoral matters. - Notwithstanding anything in this Constitution, -

(a) the validity of any law relating to the delimitation of constituencies or the allotment of seats to such constituencies, made or purporting to be made under article 243K , shall not be called in question in any court;

(b) no election to any Panchayat shall be called in question except by an election petition presented to such authority and in such manner as is provided for by or under any law made by the Legislature of a State.”

6. Perusal of Article 243-O reveals that no election to Panchayat would be called in question except by an election petition presented to such authority and in such a manner, as provided under the law made by the legislature of the State. In pursuance to the constitutional provision, the State of Rajasthan made Rajasthan Panchayati Raj (Election) Rules,