Back
2022 Supreme(Raj) 328
IN THE HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN
Pushpendra Singh Bhati, J.
Om Prakash – Petitioner
Vs.
State of Rajasthan and Others – Respondents
S.B. Criminal Misc. (Pet.) No. 2386 of 2015
Decided On : 28-07-2022
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Mr. R.S. Choudhary.
For the Respondent: Mr. Vikram Sharma.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the allegations made in the FIR must disclose a cognizable offence, and the power under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure can be exercised to prevent abuse of the process of any court or to secure the ends of justice.
Headnote:
FIR Quashing - Allegation of furnishing false information in election nomination form - IPC 467, 468, 471, 420 - Summary of the acts and sections referenced and discussed by the court: The court discussed the definition of cheating under section 415 of the Indian Penal Code and emphasized that for the offence of cheating, there should be an averment in the complaint that the accused by using fraudulent means induces a person to deliver valuable security. The court also referred to the provisions of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Act and highlighted that furnishing false information before a public servant cannot be equated with the execution of a false document. The court further cited the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Haryana & Ors. v. Bhajan Lal & Ors., 1992 SCC (Cri) 42, which provided categories of cases where the power under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure could be exercised to prevent abuse of the process of any court or to secure the ends of justice. The court concluded that the allegations made in the FIR did not disclose any cognizable offence and quashed the FIR under Sections 467, 468, 471 & 420 IPC.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner filed a criminal misc. petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of FIR No. 291/2015 P.S. Sadar, Bikaner for the offence under Section 467, 468, 471, 420 IPC.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the allegations made in the FIR did not disclose any cognizable offence and at the most, the remedy available to the complainant was to challenge the election at the appropriate forum rather than filing the FIR. The court concluded that wrong facts in the nomination paper to escape the disqualification pertaining to the third child cannot be considered to constitute the offence of cheating.
Issues: The issues revolved around the allegations of furnishing false information in the election nomination form and whether the allegations disclosed any cognizable offence.
Ratio Decidendi: The court applied the legal principles outlined in the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Haryana & Ors. v. Bhajan Lal & Ors., 1992 SCC (Cri) 42, and emphasized that the allegations made in the FIR did not disclose any cognizable offence. The court also highlighted that furnishing false information before a public servant cannot be equated with the execution of a false document.
Final Decision: The court quashed the FIR No. 291/2015 registered at Police Station Sadar, Bikaner for the offences under Sections 467, 468, 471 & 420 IPC.
JUDGMENT :
Pushpendra Singh Bhati, J.
1. The petitioner has preferred this criminal misc. petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of FIR No. 291/2015 P.S. Sadar, Bikaner for the offence under Section 467, 468, 471, 420 IPC.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Public Prosecutor jointly submit that the present case is squarely covered by the decision rendered by this Court in S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No. 3797/2016 decided on 31.05.2016, which reads as follows:
"1. The petitioner has preferred this criminal misc. petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of FIR No. 406/2016 registered at Police Station Bheenmal, District Jalore for the offences under Sections 467, 468 & 471 of IPC.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the present case is squarely covered by the decision rendered by a coordinate Bench of this Court in S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No. 661/2016; Prithvi Singh v. State of Rajasthan & Anr. decided on 31.05.2016.
3. The coordinate Bench of this Court on 31.05.2016 has passed the following order in Prithvi Singh (supra):-
"This Criminal Misc. Petition under section 482 CrPC has been filed by the petitioner with a prayer for quashing of the FIR No. 30/2015 lodged at Police Station, Sheo, District Barmer for the offences punishable under sections 420, 192 IPC.
The impugned FIR has been lodged on the basis of a complaint filed by the complainant mainly with the allegation that the petitioner while contesting election for the post of Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat, Dharvi Kalla in the General Election, 2015, submitted false declaration regarding his children in the nomination form. It is also contended that as per the provisions of Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Act, any person having more than two children after 27.11.1995 is not qualified to contest the election for the post of Member or Chairperson of a Panchayati Raj Institution and the petitioner was having more than two children after 27.11.1995, but with the intention to make him eligible to contest election made false declaration about number of his children and their date of birth, therefore, he has committed the offence of cheating and forgery.
The challenge to the impugned FIR is made by the petitioner mainly on the ground that from bare reading of the allegations contained in the impugned FIR, no case for commission of cognizable offence is made out and even if the allegations contained in the impugned FIR are taken as it is, then also the only offence, which can be made out against the petitioner is of furnishing false information/evidence before a public servant. It is contended that the offence of furnishing false information/evidence while contesting election is a non-cognizable offence and, therefore, as per sub-section (2) of section 155 CrPC, the police has no jurisdiction to investigate into the noncognizable offences without there being any order from the Magistrate concerned and as such the impugned FIR registered against the petitioner is liable to be quashed and set aside.
Per contra, the learned Public Prosecutor opposed the prayer of the petitioner while contending that since the allegations contained in the impugned FIR constitute an offence, the impugned FIR cannot be quashed.
Heard learned counsels for the rival parties and perused the impugned FIR.
The cheating is defined in section 415 of the Indian Penal Code, which reads as under:
"415. Cheating.--Whoever, by deceiving any person, fraudulently or dishonestly induces the person so deceived to deliver any property to any person, or to consent that any person shall retain any property, or intentionally induces the person so deceived to do or omit to do anything which he would not do or omit if he were not so deceived, and which act or omission causes or is likely to cause damage or harm to that person in body, mind, reputation or property, is said to "cheat".
For the offence of cheating, there should be an averment in the complaint that the accused by using fraudulen
