Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH
Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J.
Kavita Devi - Appellants
Vs.
State of Rajasthan and Ors. - Respondents
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 1456 of 2019
Decided On : 09-04-2019
Indian Penal Code, 1860 - – Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B – Criminal Procedure – Section 482 – Petition seeking quashing of FIR registered at Police Station for offences. It is further prayed that all subsequent proceedings which resulted into pendency of Criminal Case in court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, titled as State of Rajasthan, complaint against petitioner and others in court of Chief Judicial Magistrate wherein she alleged that petitioner for contesting election to post of Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat Rashidpura, and to become eligible, furnished forged transfer certificate depicting therein that she passed VIII Class examination –Held, Offence involving forgery of document if committed far outside precincts of Court and long before its production in Court, could also be treated as one affecting administration of justice merely because that document later reached court records, therefore, in present case, transfer certificate was forged and fabricated before it was presented before the returning officer along with nomination form. It is not a case that said document forged while it in custody of court, bar under Section 195(1)(b)(ii), Cr.P.C. is not attracted petitioner as noted earlier are distinguishable as they only pertain to furnishing wrong information or false declaration in the nomination form – Petition is dismissed. (Para 12, 19, 20, 21)
Facts of the case:
Petition seeking quashing of FIR registered at Police Station for offences. It is further prayed that all subsequent proceedings which resulted into pendency of Criminal Case in court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, titled as State of Rajasthan, complaint against petitioner and others in court of Chief Judicial Magistrate wherein she alleged that petitioner for contesting election to post of Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat Rashidpura, and to become eligible, furnished forged transfer certificate depicting therein that she passed VIII Class examination.
Findings of the court:
Offence involving forgery of document if committed far outside precincts of Court and long before its production in Court, could also be treated as one affecting administration of justice merely because that document later reached court records, therefore, in present case, transfer certificate was forged and fabricated before it was presented before the returning officer along with nomination form. It is not a case that said document forged while it in custody of court, bar under Section 195(1)(b)(ii), Cr.P.C. is not attracted petitioner as noted earlier are distinguishable as they only pertain to furnishing wrong information or false declaration in the nomination form.
Result: Petition is dismissed.
ORDER :
Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J.
1. The present petition has been filed under Section 482, Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of FIR No. 92/2015 dated 3.4.2015 registered at Police Station Sadar, Sikar for the offences under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B, IPC. It is further prayed that all subsequent proceedings which have resulted into pendency of the Criminal Case No. 500/2016 in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sikar titled as State of Rajasthan v. Smt. Kavita Devi be also quashed.
2. Briefly stated, Smt. Manju Devi respondent No. 2 instituted a criminal complaint against the petitioner and others in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate Sikar wherein she alleged that the petitioner for contesting election to the post of Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat Rashidpura, Panchayat Samiti Dhod, Sikar and to become eligible, furnished forged transfer certificate depicting therein that she had passed VIII Class examination.
3. The complainant/respondent No. 2 made a grievance that the petitioner in order to become eligible to contest the election relied upon VIII Class transfer certificate which was forged and fabricated document and thus, election of the petitioner for the post of Sarpanch was result of commission of criminal offences punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468 and 471, IPC.
4. Upon the complaint filed by the respondent No. 2, order under Section 156 (3), Cr.P.C. was passed by the court of concerned Magistrate and on the basis thereof, police registered the FIR No. 92/2015 at Police Station Sadar, Sikar for the above said offences.
5. In the present petition seeking quashing of FTR, learned counsel for the petitioner has primarily placed reliance upon the judgment dated 3.11.2017 passed in Smt. Kamla v. State of Rajasthan, SBCRLMP No. 1164/2016, decided by a co-ordinate Bench at the Principal Seafrat Jodhpur.
6. A perusal of the judgment rendered in the case of Smt. Kamla (supra) reveals that in that case, petitioner Smt. Kamla had furnished a wrong information in the nomination paper by concealing number of children. In the case of Smt. Kamla (supra) it was specifically noted that regarding furnishing of forged certificate of Vimla wife of Sata Ram a separate FTR was registered. Therefore, so far furnishing of wrong information regarding number of children was concerned, in the case of Smt. Kamla (supra) FIR was quashed.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon another judgment in the case of Harkeshi Devi v. State of Rajasthan & Anr., SBCRLMP No. 628/2017 decided on 22.2.2017 by the co-ordinate Bench at Principal Seat at Jodhpur.
8. In the case of Harkeshi Devi (supra) also, it was alleged that Harkeshi Devi had concealed number of children in the nomination paper and thereby made a false declaration. The case of the prosecution in the case of Harkeshi Devi was that she was having three children but this information was not correctly furnished by her in the nomination paper.
9. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further placed reliance upon another judgment Amita Trivedi & Anr. v. State of Rajasthan & Anr., 2013 (2) RLW 1313 (Raj.) : (2013 Cri LJ (NOC) 240 (Raj)). In the case of Amita Trivedi (supra) also wrong information was furnished by Amita Trivedi and in the column where name of husband was to be given, she had furnished name of her father-in-law. Therefore, in the case of Amita Trivedi, the case of prosecution was that she had furnished a false declaration alongwith nomination form.
10. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further placed reliance upon Balbir Singh v. State of Rajasthan, 2016 (4) CrLR. (Raj.) 1824. In that case also, no document was fabricated and it was alleged that Balbir Singh furnished wrong information regarding number of children.
11. Similarly, in the case of Raxpal Sihag v. State of Rajasthan & Ors., 2014(1) Cr.L.R. (Raj.) 155, cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner, it was alleged that Raxpal Sihag had fraudulently managed induction of their names in voter
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
