ORDER :

1. This criminal miscellaneous petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing the FIR No. 31/2020 dated 21.02.2020 lodged at Police Station Kaprain, District Bundi for the offences under Sections 420, 467 and 468 of IPC.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the only allegation in the FIR is of furnishing false information in the nomination paper submitted by him with the Returning Officer for contesting election for the post of Sarpanch, Grampanchayat-Roteda. Relying on the judgments of this Court in cases of Balbir Singh versus State of Rajasthan reported in 2016 (4) Cr. L.R. (Raj.) 1824, Nijnam Meena vs. State of Rajasthan, SB Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No. 3376/2017 decided on 27.10.2017, learned counsel submitted that since the submission of false information with the Returning Officer, i.e. a public servant, is specifically covered under Section 177 IPC for which prosecution can be launched by the concerned public servant only in terms of Section 195(1)(a) IPC and hence, no FIR is maintainable.

3. Per contra, opposing the prayer, learned Public Prosecutor assisted by learned counsel for the complainant submitted that in the FIR itself there are specific allegations against the petitioner of not only submitting false affidavit for contesting election; but, also of forging and fabricating documents such as Ration Card, Bhamashah Card and documents to show fake date of birth of his son Shankar Singh that too concealing his identity. They contended that since the FIR discloses commission of cognizable offence, the same cannot be quashed by this Court under its extraordinary jurisdiction. They, therefore, submitted that the controversy is not covered by judgments of this Court in cases of Balbir Singh (supra) & Nijnam Meena (supra) wherein the only allegation was of furnishing false information to the Returning Officer.

4. Heard learned counsels for the parties and perused the record.

5. The contents of the FIR reveal that the allegation against the petitioner is not only of submitting false information on oath with the Returning Officer; but of creating false and fabricated documents also. A perusal of the case diary reveals that there is prima-facie material available therein to substantiate the allegation levelled in the FIR. In these circumstances, judgments of this Court in cases of Balbir Singh (supra) and Nijnam Meena (supra) are of no assistance to him since the FIR in question discloses commission of cognizable offences also.

6. The Hon’ble Apex Court of India in case of State of Andhra Pradesh vs. Bajjoori Kanthaiah and Others, AIR 2009 SCC 671, held as under:-

“8. As noted above, the powers possessed by the High Court under Section 482 of the Code are very wide and the very plenitude of the power requires great caution in its exercise. Court must be careful to see that its decision in exercise of this power is based on sound principles. The inherent power should not be exercised to stifle a legitimate prosecution. High Court being the highest Court of a State should normally refrain from giving a prima facie decision in a case where the entire facts are incomplete and hazy, more so when the evidence has not been collected and produced before the Court and the issues involved, whether factual or legal, are of magnitude and cannot be seen in their true perspective without sufficient material. Of course, no hard and fast rule can be laid down in regard to cases in which the High Court will exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction of quashing the proceeding at any stage. [See: The Janata Dal vs. H.S. Chowdhary and Others, AIR 1993 SC 892 and Dr. Raghubir Saran vs. State of Bihar and Another, AIR 1964 SC 1]. It would not be proper for the High Court to analyse the case of the complainant in the light of all probabilities in order to determine whether a conviction would be sustainable and on such premises, arrive at a conclusion that the proceedings are to be quashed. It would be er