The court clarified that allegations of forgery allow for FIR registration without a public servant's complaint, thus enabling investigation.

JUDGMENT

1. This petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of FIR No. 78/2021 registered at Police Station Kaman, Distt. Bharatpur for the offence under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 193, 198, 199, 120B IPC.

2. Heard learned counsel for both the sides and perused the material made available on record.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioner No. 1 is an elected Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat Gadhzaan Distt. Bharatpur. The defeated candidate Smt. Hazari has lodged this FIR due to political rivalry. The impugned FIR has been lodged mainly with the allegation that the petitioner No. 1 gave false information in the nomination paper during the course of election process. Thus, even if the allegations are taken to be true at the most offence under Section 177 Cr.P.C. is made out for which complaint can be made only by the Public Servant in terms of Section 195(1)(a) Cr.P.C. Accordingly, the impugned FIR deserves to be quashed being non-maintainable. He has placed reliance on judgment passed by this Court in SB CRLMP No.1561/2019; Rekha Bano v. State of Rajasthan decided on 07.03.2019.

4. Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the petition with the submission that the allegations of forgery have also been mentioned in the FIR. The investigation is under going. Thus, the FIR is very much maintainable.

5. Heard. Considered.

6. True it is that in the judgment cited by the learned counsel for the petitioners, this Court has held that giving false information in nomination paper constitute the offences punishable under Sections 177 & 182 IPC for which complaint of public officer is necessary under Section 195 Cr.P.C. But, at the same time, it has not been held that the FIR cannot be registered for the offences of forgery etc.

7. Hon'ble Supreme Court in catena of judgments vis Andhra Pradesh v. Bajjoori Kanthaiah and Ors. (AIR 2009 SCC 671); Dr. Monica Kumar & Anr. v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. (AIR 2008 SCC 2781) & M/s. Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra [(2021) SCC Online SC 315], Salimbhai Hamidbhai Menon v. Nitesh Kumar Manganbhai & Anr. [2021 SCC Online SC 647], DineshBhai Chanubhai Patel v. State of Gujarat & Ors. [2018 3 SCC 104], SB CRLW No. 03/2013; Kailash Chand Sharma v. State of Rajasthan & Ors. has categorically held that the scope of Section 482 Cr.P.C. is limited. If the contents of FIR constitute commission of cognizable offence, the same cannot be quashed at the very threshold. The Court cannot take the place of Investigating Agency and the Investigating Agency should be allowed to conduct investigation as per law.

8. On consideration of the rival submissions of both the sides in light of the above legal position, this Court finds that in the impugned FIR, besides allegation of giving false information in nomination paper, clear allegation of forging public document(s) and its use as genuine for the purpose of contesting election suppressing the ineligibility has been mentioned. Thus, the contents of FIR do constitute commission of above offences including the offences of Sections 467, 468 & 471 IPC for which no complaint of a public servant is required under Section 195 Cr.P.C. and there is no legal bar, whatsoever, to allow the investigation in the matter.

9. In view of the above discussion and reasons stated, this Court does not find any reason to quash the impugned FIR, the petition is, therefore, dismissed.