The main legal point established in the judgment is that if the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence and only constitute non-cognizable offences, the FIR can be quashed.

JUDGMENT

Pushpendra Singh Bhati, J. - This Criminal Misc. Petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been preferred with the following prayer:-

"It is, therefore, most humbly and respectfully prayed that this Criminal Misc. Petition may kindly be allowed and the F.I.R. No. 355/2017 registered at Police Station Pilibanga, Pilibanga, Hanumangarh and further proceedings pursuant thereof, may kindly be quashed and set-aside.

Any other appropriate relief, which this Hon'ble Court deems just and proper in favour of the petitioner, may kindly be passed."

2. Brief facts of the case as placed before this Court by learned counsel for the petitioners are that on the basis of a complaint made before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Pilibanga by the complainant-respondent no. 2, Rai Singh, an F.I.R. bearing No. 0335/2017 was registered at Police Station, Pilibanga. It was averred therein that on 01.02.2015, an election was conducted for the post of Sarpanch in Gram Panchayat, Pilibanga; for which, candidates were to submit their forms before the election officer, and that as per the law, a person having more than 2 children would ipso facto be disqualified from contesting the said election; for establishing the qualification/eligibility to contest the election, an affidavit with respect to the same, along with the election forms, must also be filed. However, that the complainant-respondent no. 2, being a and R/o Nihalpura village, entered a war of words with the accused-petitioner no. 2, Shankar Lal, at a camp organized in the village on 18.05.2017 wherein the said accused allegedly stated that his wife contested a ward election and won the seat, despite having three children. It was further averred therein, that the complainant secured relevant copies of the election form, affidavit and other documents through the Right to Information Act, 2005 whereby it is clear that the accused-petitioner No. 1 has only two children, and a concealment was made by her in the said documents.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the complaint is baseless and is wrong on the facts, and the accused petitioners no. 1 and 2 in fact only have two biological children, namely Reeta and Nisha, and that the third child, Maya, is their niece who is under their care. And that the same is verifiable from the ration card and school certificates of their niece, which reveal that her father is Mr. Prithvi Raj.

3.1. Learned counsel further submitted that the name of the niece was incorrectly added to the family ration card of the petitioners no. 1 and 2, and that a correction application for the same was also duly filed.

3.2. Learned counsel also submitted that, owing to the above made submissions, the complaint so filed by the complainant-respondent no. 2 is therefore baseless, and thus in the interest of the justice, seeks the indulgence of this Court to the quash the F.I.R. in question.

3.3. Learned counsel relied upon the following judgments:

(a) Narayan Lal v. State of Rajasthan & Anr. (S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No. 1259/2016, decided by this Court on 17.04.2017;

(b) Amita Trivedi & Anr. v. State of Rajasthan & Anr. (S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No. 2763/2011, decided on 30.07.2012);

(c) Chokha Ram v. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No. 250/2016;

(d) Rewant Ram v. State of Rajasthan (S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No. 1120/2016, decided by a coordinate Bench of this Hon'ble Court on 31.05.2016).

4. On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor opposes the aforesaid submissions made on behalf of the petitioner and submitted that as per the latest factual report, the accused-petitioner no. 2, Shankar Lal, has not submitted the ration card before the concerned police authorities, despite intimations for the same over phone calls, and notice under Section 41A Cr.P.C., for the same being served upon him. And thus, the averment so made by the learned counsel for the petitioners to that extent, could not be verified by the concerned police authoriti