Madhya Pradesh High Court
Harvir Singh vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 28 June, 2016
1 Mcrc.5897.2014
Harvir Singh and others Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and other
Mcrc.6319.2014
Smt. Kiran Jain Vs. Komal Prasad Shakya and other
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
BENCH AT GWALIOR
Miscellaneous Criminal Case No.5897 of 2014
Harvir Singh and others AFR
-Vs-
The State of Madhya Pradesh & Other
Judge
For the applicants : Shri Rajmani Bansal, Advocate
For respondent : Shri Prabal Solanki, Public
No.1/State Prosecutor
For respondent No.2 : Shri Vinod Pathak, Advocate
&
Miscellaneous Criminal Case No.6319 of 2014
Smt. Kiran Jain
-Vs-
Komal Prasad Shakya & Other
For the applicant : Shri S.S. Rajput, Advocate
For respondent No.1 : Shri Vinod Pathak, Advocate
For respondent : Shri Prabal Solanki, Public
No.2/State Prosecutor
PRESENT: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE N.K. GUPTA, J.
ORDER
(28/06/2016) Both the petitions under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for brevity "the Code") have been filed to quash the proceedings of Criminal Complaint Case 2 Mcrc.5897.2014 Harvir Singh and others Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and other Mcrc.6319.2014 Smt. Kiran Jain Vs. Komal Prasad Shakya and other No.1072/2014 pending before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Guna (M.P.) and therefore both the petitions are hereby disposed off with the present common order. (2) The applicants of Mcrc No.5897/2014 have filed the present petition under Section 482 of the Code to quash the proceedings of Criminal Complaint Case No.1072/2014 pending before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Guna (M.P.) for offence under Section 420, 467, 468, 471 read with Section 120-B of IPC but they have also challenged the order dated 28.05.2014 passed by the concerned JMFC under Section 204 of IPC and the order dated 10.07.2014 passed by the III Additional Sessions Judge, Guna (M.P.) in Criminal Revision No.85/2014 whereby the revision filed by the applicants was dismissed.
(3) The applicant of Mcrc No.6319/2014 has filed the present petition under Section 482 of the Code to quash the aforesaid proceedings of the trial court and she has also challenged the order dated 01.07.2014 passed by the III Additional Sessions Judge, Guna (M.P.) in Criminal Revision No.96/2014 along with the order dated 28.05.2014 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Guna (M.P.).
(4) Facts of the case, in short, are that applicant Rajendra Singh had applied for his caste certificate before the competent authority at Guna. In support of that application, the applicant Harveer Singh on behalf of management committee of Gurdwara Shri Guru Singh Sabha, Guna (M.P.) had issued a certificate that the applicant Rajendra Singh was "Sansi" by caste. The applicant Amreek Singh, being the father of the applicant 3 Mcrc.5897.2014 Harvir Singh and others Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and other Mcrc.6319.2014 Smt. Kiran Jain Vs. Komal Prasad Shakya and other Rajendra Singh had given an affidavit in support of the applicant Rajendra Singh and applicant Smt. Kiran Jain, being the ward member of the locality where the applicant Rajendra Singh was residing, had given a certificate about the caste of applicant Rajendra Singh. On the basis of such documents vide order dated 31.05.2008, Tahsildar concerned had issued a provisional caste certificate to the applicant Rajendra Singh. Thereafter, on 08.08.2008, the Sub-Divisional Officer, Guna (M.P.) had issued a permanent caste certificate to the applicant Rajendra Singh that his caste was "Sansi". On complaint, the matter was referred to the High Power Scrutiny Committee constituted for dealing with all such cases. The High Power Scrutiny Committee gave a report on 10.08.2011 in shape of order and minutes of the meeting which took place before the concerned Principal Secretary of the State Government in which the the caste certificate issued on 08.08.2008 was set aside and forfeited by the government and the committee. Thereafter, the applicant Rajendra Singh filed a writ petition bearing number 6378/2011, however, the same was dismissed by the Single Bench of this Court vide order dated 21.03.2012. A writ appeal was also filed which was dismissed vide order dated 07.05.2012. The applicant Rajendra Singh went before the Apex Court but his Special Leave Petition (SLP) was dismissed at preliminary stage. The complainant, namely, Komal Prasad Shakya, respondent No.2 in Mcrc No.5897/2014 and respondent No.1 in Mcrc No.6319/2014, filed a criminal complaint against the applicants and various persons including the Sub-Divisional Officer and 4 Mcrc.5897.2014 Harvir Singh and others Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and other Mcrc.6319.2014 Smt. Kiran Jain Vs. Komal Prasad Shakya and other the Tahsildar. The Judicial Magistrate First Class, Guna (M.P.) after considering the evidence adduced by the complainant under Section 200 and 202 of the Code vide order dated 28.05.2014 registered a complaint against the applicant Rajendra Singh for the offence punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 of IPC and the complaint was registered against other applicants for offence under Sections 420, 467, 468 and 471 read with Section 120B of IPC whereas the complaint filed by the complainant against other accused persons was dismissed under Section 203 of the Code. It would be clear from that order that complaint was dismissed against Mr. Virendra Katare, the then Tahsildar, Guna, Mr. D.K. Jain, the then Sub- Divisional Officer (Revenue) Guna, Mr. Mahendra Sharma, the then Patwari, Halka No. 75, Tahsil Guna, Mr. Awadhesh Pratap Singh, the then SDO(P), Raghogarh, Dr. R.S. Bhati, Medical Officer, District Hospital, Guna and two citizens, namely, Mr. Gajadhar Prasad Agrawal and Mr. Awadhesh Maheshwari.
(5) Heard the learned counsel for the parties at length. (6) In the present case, it would be made clear that the order passed by the High Power Scrutiny Committee in question is to be considered as to whether applicants have done any forgery or conspiracy to commit the offence of forgery and cheating. The High Court in Writ Petition and in Writ Appeal has discussed the order passed by the High Power Scrutiny Committee to consider its validity but in such matters mens rea of any of the applicants relating to criminal aspect in the process of the issuance of caste certificate was not examined and therefore it is to be 5 Mcrc.5897.2014 Harvir Singh and others Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and other Mcrc.6319.2014 Smt. Kiran Jain Vs. Komal Prasad Shakya and other examined before this Court. It is the case of the complainant that the applicant Rajendra Singh during his education and initial profession or business did not mention that he was "Sansi" by caste. He used the word "Sikh" in the column of caste while filling various application forms for his educational examinations etc. Suddenly, he prayed for a certificate of caste that he was "Sansi" by caste. The complainant has filed so many documents to show that the applicant Rajendra Singh had claimed himself to be a "Sikh" by caste whereas suddenly, he changed his version to claim his caste, However, notion of the complainant is not correct. In this connection, the order dated 11.10.2004 passed by the Collector, District Guna (M.P.) may be referred which was filed by the complainant before this Court on 04.09.2004 along with other documents in which the Collector constituted the District Level Minority Welfare Committee and in which some citizens were appointed to assist the Collector for Muslim community, Jain community, Sikh community and Christian community. There is a lot of difference between the caste and community. A person who is in a particular community may not have the same caste as of another member of that community. Hence, if the applicant Rajendra Singh had mentioned his caste as "Sikh" during his educational period and thereafter, his such conduct could be due to lack of knowledge and it cannot be said that he was not competent to claim for the benefits of his caste. Actually, "Sikh" is not a complete community and "Sikh" is a sect of that "Punjabi" community or it can be said that "Sikh" is a special community within the Punjabi 6 Mcrc.5897.2014 Harvir Singh and others Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and other Mcrc.6319.2014 Smt. Kiran Jain Vs. Komal Prasad Shakya and other community. If someone says that he is an Indian then it cannot be said that he does not belong to a particular caste. Under these circumstances, the applicant Rajendra Singh was competent to move an application for getting a caste certificate about his caste within the "Sikh" community. Hence, the submission made by the learned counsel for the complainant/respondent- Komal Prasad Shakya cannot be accepted that the applicant Rajendra Singh took a somersault about his caste.
(7) It is observed at the national level that public in general is not aware of laws, various rules and circulars issued relating to their daily lives and therefore National Legal Services Authority is arranging legal literacy camps throughout the country with the help of State Legal Services Committee and district level committees. Hence, the conduct of the applicant Rajendra Singh prior to his claim of his caste shall be considered as an ignorance about the various provisions of law. Though it is a settled view of the Apex Court that ignorance of law is no excuse but still the Apex Court with the help of NALSA is trying to get literacy relating to laws in general public and therefore it cannot be said prima facie that since the applicant Rajendra Singh did not mention that he was of "Sansi" caste at initial stage, and therefore, he was not competent to claim his caste before the competent authority. (8) The complainant has filed a detailed complaint and various documents to show the conduct of the applicants while getting the caste certificate. In the complaint, the document is not specified against such complaint was filed, however, it would be apparent that the case was 7 Mcrc.5897.2014 Harvir Singh and others Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and other Mcrc.6319.2014 Smt. Kiran Jain Vs. Komal Prasad Shakya and other registered against the applicant Rajendra Singh for forgery and using forged documents whereas the complaint case is registered against the remaining applicants for the same offence due to criminal conspiracy done by these persons and according to the view taken by the High Power Scrutiny Committed in its order dated 10.08.2011, provisional caste certificate was not blamed because such provisional caste certificate could be issued on the basis of the affidavit and the High Power Scrutiny Committee had cancelled the caste certificate dated 08.08.2008 and therefore only that certificate appears to be under challenge as a forged document.
(9) It would be pertinent to note that High Power Scrutiny Committee has mentioned in its report that the certificate was issued in favour of the applicant Rajendra Singh by a Tahildar of Amritsar district in the State of Punjab and when the matter was given to the Superintendent of Police concerned for investigation, Sub- Inspector Shri Dinesh Sharma was deputed to visit Amritsar in the State of Punjab who went there and verified the information given by the Tahsildar of Amritsar and he found that the information given by Tahsildar of Amritsar was correct and the applicant was "Sansi" by caste. There is no evidence on record that any of the applicants had manipulated the record at the office of Tahsildar at Amritsar in the State of Punjab. Such fact should be considered to assess the mens rea of the applicants in prosecuting the application of caste certificate, however, it is apparent that the complainant has challenged the overt acts of the applicants of forgery 8 Mcrc.5897.2014 Harvir Singh and others Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and other Mcrc.6319.2014 Smt. Kiran Jain Vs. Komal Prasad Shakya and other in making the caste certificate dated 08.08.2008 issued by Sub-Divisional Officer, Guna (M.P.).
(10) If a person applies for a caste certificate and the same is not issued by the competent authority and he prepares a false document then he commits an offence of forgery. In the present case, it is an admitted fact that the certificate dated 08.08.2008 was issued by the competent authority i.e. Sub-Divisional Officer, Guna (M.P.). Though it was issued without the sufficient evidence, but that document was not forged in the eyes of law. It was a genuine certificate though issued without any sufficient basis. In this context, the definition of forgery as prescribed in Section 463 of IPC is hereby reproduced for ready reference:
463. Forgery.--Whoever makes any false documents or false electronic record or part of a document or electronic record, with intent to cause damage or injury], to the public or to any person, or to support any claim or title, or to cause any person to part with property, or to enter into any express or implied contract, or with intent to commit fraud or that fraud may be committed, commits forgery.
According to that definition, offence of forgery is constituted if a false document would have been created by any person. A provision relating to making of a false document is prescribed in Section 464 of IPC which is reproduced as under (illustrations of that section are not reproduced):-
9 Mcrc.5897.2014 Harvir Singh and others Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and other Mcrc.6319.2014 Smt. Kiran Jain Vs. Komal Prasad Shakya and other "464 Making a false document. --[A person is said to make a false document or false electronic record-- First --Who dishonestly or fradulently--
(a) makes, signs, seals or executes a document or part of a document;
(b) makes or transmits any electronic record or part of any electronic record;
(c) affixes any [electronic signature] on any electronic record;
(d) makes any mark denoting the execution of a document or the authenticity of the [electronic signature], with the intention of causing it to be believed that such document or part of document, electronic record or [electronic signature] was made, signed, sealed, executed, transmitted or affixed by or by the authority of a person by whom or by whose authority he knows that it was not made, signed, sealed, executed or affixed; or Secondly --Who, without lawful authority, dishonestly or fraudulenty, by cancellation or otherwise, alters a document or an electronic record in any material part thereof, after it has been made, executed or affixed with [electronic signature] either by himself or by any other person, whether such person be living or dead at the time of such alteration; or Thirdly --Who dishonestly or fraudulently causes any person to sign, seal, execute or alter a document 10 Mcrc.5897.2014 Harvir Singh and others Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and other Mcrc.6319.2014 Smt. Kiran Jain Vs. Komal Prasad Shakya and other or an electronic record or to affix his [electronic signature] on any electronic record knowing that such person by reason of unsoundness of mind or intoxication cannot, or that by reason of deception practised upon him, he does not know the contents of the document or electronic record or the nature of the alteration.
(11) After considering the provisions of Section 463 and 464 of IPC, it should be clear while prosecuting a person for forgery that it is not sufficient that the text of the document is false but it is to be established that the accused has made a false document as per the conditions given in Section 464 of IPC and the purpose of making such a false document should fall within the purview of Section 463. If someone induces the concerned officer to issue a particular certificate and the text of the certificate is not correct but if the certificate is issued by the competent authority, it cannot be said that the person either made false document or involved in the conspiracy of making false documents.
(12) If the conduct of the applicants is examined in the light of Section 464 of IPC then it would be clear from the caste certificate dated 08.08.2008 that neither signature nor seals etc. of Sub-Divisional Officer were forged but the caste certificate was issued by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Guna himself and therefore it was not a false document in the eyes of law according to the provisions of Section 464 of IPC. Hence, it cannot be said that it was a forged document. In this connection, the judgment passed by the 11 Mcrc.5897.2014 Harvir Singh and others Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and other Mcrc.6319.2014 Smt. Kiran Jain Vs. Komal Prasad Shakya and other Apex Court in the case of "Mohd. Ibrahim Vs. State of Bihar" [(2005) 8 SCC 751], is worth mentioning, in which it is observed that when a document is executed by a person claiming a property, which is not his, he is not claiming that he is someone else nor is he claiming that he is authorized by someone else. Therefore, the execution of such document [purporting to convey some property of which he is not the owner] is not execution of a false document as defined under Section 464 of IPC. Similarly, in this context, the judgment/order passed by the single Bench of this Court in the case of "State Government, Madhya Pradesh Vs. Hafizulrahman" [AIR 1952 Nag 12], in which it is laid that for the offence of forgery, the document must be purported to have been signed, made or sealed by a person who did not in fact do it. The fact that a document contains false recitals or statements which induced persons who deceive to part with or deliver the property would not make it an offence of forgery. (13) In the light of the aforesaid judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Mohd. Ibrahim (supra) and judgment/order passed by the single Bench of this Court in the case of State Government, Madhya Pradesh (supra), if caste certificate dated 08.08.2008 is examined then certificate was issued by the concerned Sub-Divisional Officer, Guna though its contents were not correct because it was issued without sufficient evidence. Hence, in the light of the aforesaid judgments, the document in question cannot be said to be a forged document in the light of provisions contained under Sections 463 and 464 of IPC. When prima facie the document under challenge is not a 12 Mcrc.5897.2014 Harvir Singh and others Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and other Mcrc.6319.2014 Smt. Kiran Jain Vs. Komal Prasad Shakya and other forged document then the complaint could not have been registered for any offence relating to forgery either directly or with the help of Section 120-B of IPC. Both the Courts below have committed an error of law in not considering the caste certificate dated 08.08.2008 that it was not at all a forged document and therefore, complaint could not be registered for offences under Sections 467, 468, 471 of IPC or similar inferior offence of forgery either directly or with help of Section 120-B of IPC. (14) The complaint has also been filed for the offence under Section 420 of IPC against all of the applicants. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the complainant/ respondent Komal Prasad Shakya that all the applicants except Rajendra Singh, specifically Amreek Singh, Harveer Singh and Smt. Kiran Jain had executed either an affidavit or issued a caste certificate in favour of the applicant Rajendra Singh for which they were not competent to issue and, therefore, they participated in the crime of applicant Rajendra Singh and they were involved in the criminal conspiracy. However, it would be apparent by status of applicant Harvindra Singh and Smt. Kiran Jain that they were the office bearers of Gurdwara Shri Guru Singh Sabha, Guna (M.P.) and ward member of the concerned ward, where the applicant Rajendra Singh had resided, respectively. Though they did not have any record relating to the caste of their members or residents in that ward but they were enjoying a social status. Therefore, under due to their social obligation in their respective fields if they had analyzed the evidence produced before them and if they had issued such certificate relating to the caste of 13 Mcrc.5897.2014 Harvir Singh and others Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and other Mcrc.6319.2014 Smt. Kiran Jain Vs. Komal Prasad Shakya and other applicant Rajendra Singh then it cannot be said that they were involved in the criminal conspiracy along with applicant Rajendra Singh. It is possible that Harveer Singh who was the office bearer of Gurdwara Shri Guru Singh Sabha, Guna (M.P.) had obtained knowledge from various members and devotees of Gurdwara Shri Guru Singh committee that the applicant Rajendra Singh was "Sansi" by caste and therefore if he had issued a certificate then it may be his bona fide social act and therefore it cannot be said that he was involved in the crime of cheating. When the Magisterial Court dismissed the complaint under Section 203 of the Code against the Sub-Divisional Officer, Tahsildar, Patwari and a Medical Officer who had also believed the evidence produced or collected before them then on the same analogy no case could be registered against the applicant Harveer Singh who was the office bearer of Gurdwara Shri Guru Singh Sabha, Guna (M.P.). Situation of applicant Smt. Kiran Jain is similar to that of the applicant Harveer Singh that being a representative of the ward or a ward member, if she had relied upon the various documents and it was the necessity for the application of caste certificate to be filed before the competent authority, she would have given such a certificate. She gave a certificate by social obligation of virtue of her post on the basis of documents produced before her and therefore on the similar analogy as applied in the case of Harveer Singh it cannot be said prima facie that Smt. Kiran Jain was involved in the criminal conspiracy for offence of cheating. The courts below did not consider such a situation while passing the orders and 14 Mcrc.5897.2014 Harvir Singh and others Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and other Mcrc.6319.2014 Smt. Kiran Jain Vs. Komal Prasad Shakya and other a criminal complaint was wrongly registered against the applicants Harveer Singh and Smt. Kiran Jain for the offence under Section 420 read with Section 120-B of IPC. (15) Conduct of the applicant Rajendra Singh and his father Amreek Singh is different from applicants Harveer Singh and Smt. Kiran Jain. The applicant Rajendra Singh had filled up various forms during the tenure of his academic career by mentioning his case to be "Sikh" and suddenly he and his father have started to claim that they were "Sansi" by caste. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the complainant/respondent - Komal Prasad Shakya that the overt act of these two persons falls within the purview of offence under Section 420 of IPC. The applicant- Amreek Singh helped the applicant Rajendra Singh in getting a false certificate of his caste and therefore he was involved in the criminal conspiracy with the applicant Rajendra Singh. However, as discussed above that the forefathers of applicant Rajendra Singh had migrated from Pakistan. Thereafter, they resided in the territory of Amritsar District for 3-4 years and thereafter they again migrated to Guna in the State of Madhya Pradesh. It is discussed earlier that the legal literacy is required amongst the public in general. If the overt act of the Sub-Divisional Officer, Guna is considered while issuance of caste certificate, it appears that he was also not aware of the rules framed by the State Government for issuance of a caste certificate and therefore possibility cannot be ruled out that the applicant Rajendra Singh and his father would have received the knowledge of their caste being scheduled when the applicant Rajendra Singh 15 Mcrc.5897.2014 Harvir Singh and others Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and other Mcrc.6319.2014 Smt. Kiran Jain Vs. Komal Prasad Shakya and other had already grown up and if applicant Rajendra Singh had applied for the caste certificate and applicant Amreek Singh had given an affidavit in support of that application then directly it cannot be said that their such conduct was of cheating or of conspiracy to commit cheating. (16) In this connection, the order dated 10.08.2011 passed by the High Power Scrutiny Committee should be examined with criminal aspect. In that order, it was mentioned that various witnesses were examined. A letter was written to the Superintendent of Police, Guna (M.P.) to enquire about the caste certificate of the applicant Rajendra Singh from the Tahsil Office at Amritsar. Sub- Inspector Mr. Dinesh Sharma had gone to that Tahsil Office and he confirmed that the applicant was "Sansi" by caste, however, High Power Scrutiny Committee has referred the various rules and it relied upon the statement given by the then Sub-Divisional Officer Shri D.K. Jain who issued the caste certificate that he did not follow the procedure of issuance of a permanent caste certificate and consequently that caste certificate was cancelled and forfeited. In this connection, a Circular No.,Q&7&13@2004@vk-iz-@,d dated 11.07.2005 may be perused. In para 6.6 of that circular, it was clearly mentioned as to how a permanent caste certificate can be issued. A detailed procedure was given for that purpose. As per para 6.7 of that circular a provisional caste certificate can be issued on the basis of affidavits etc. Hence, it was for the Sub-Divisional Officer, Guna to adopt the procedure as given in para 6.6 of that circular before issuance of the caste certificate and the High Power 16 Mcrc.5897.2014 Harvir Singh and others Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and other Mcrc.6319.2014 Smt. Kiran Jain Vs. Komal Prasad Shakya and other Scrutiny Committee has cancelled the certificate mainly because Sub-Divisional Officer did not adopt the procedure as required.
(17) In the present case, it is admitted fact that the forefathers of the applicant Rajendra Singh had migrated from Pakistan to Punjab in the year 1947 and thereafter they resided at a village of Amritsar Tahsil [State of Punjab] for 3-4 years. Thereafter, they migrated from that place to Guna in the State of Madhya Pradesh. Applicant Amreek Singh, father of the applicant Rajendra Singh, could not give the exact dates about such migration from State of Punjab to the State of Madhya Pradesh. If the forefathers of the applicant Rajendra Singh were not much literate, there was no possibility for them to get the caste certificate from the very beginning or to treat the documents relating to their caste or to get the documents relating to dates of migration etc. Documents of the year 1950 cannot be obtained from various places without any difficulty. Hence, it was for the Sub-Divisional Officer concerned to assess the caste of the applicant Rajendra Singh on the basis of the aforesaid facts. In this connection, the judgment passed by the Apex Court in the case of "Maari Chandra Shekhar Rao Vs. Dean, Seth G.S. Medical College and others" [(1990) 3 SCC 130] may be referred in which it is held that when a Scheduled Caste or tribe migrates, there is no inhibition in migrating but when he migrates, he does not and cannot carry any special rights or privileges attributed to him or granted to him in the original State specified for that State or area or part thereof. If that right is not given in the migrated state 17 Mcrc.5897.2014 Harvir Singh and others Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and other Mcrc.6319.2014 Smt. Kiran Jain Vs. Komal Prasad Shakya and other it does not interfere with his constitutional right of equality or of migration or of carrying on his trade, business or profession. Hence, it was for the applicant Rajendra Singh to establish that his forefathers had migrated from the State of Punjab to the State of Madhya Pradesh prior to the year 1950 when a notification relating to caste was issued and Constitution of India came into force. If forefathers of applicant Rajendra Singh would have migrated prior to 1950 from the State of Punjab to the State of Madhya Pradesh then being a resident of Madhya Pradesh he could get an advantage of his caste "Sansi" but if his forefathers had migrated from the State of Punjab to the State of Madhya Pradesh after the year 1950 then they could have a status of Scheduled Caste in the State of Punjab because of their caste but after their migration to the State of Madhya Pradesh, they could not get the advantage of their caste, unless such reservation was recognized by the State of Madhya Pradesh. (18) As per the information received from the office of Tahsildar of Tahsil Amritsar [State of Punjab], it is clear that the forefathers of the applicant Rajendra Singh had migrated after the year 1950 otherwise prior to the year 1950, the office of Tahsildar was not required to register the caste of various residents in the area of Tahsil. Therefore, in the light of aforesaid judgment passed by the Apex Court in the case of Maari Chandra Shekhar Rao (supra), the applicant Rajendra Singh could get his caste certificate on the basis of the decisions taken by the State of Madhya Pradesh. In this connection, the complainant has filed the circular dated 11.07.2005 relating to 18 Mcrc.5897.2014 Harvir Singh and others Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and other Mcrc.6319.2014 Smt. Kiran Jain Vs. Komal Prasad Shakya and other procedure for issuance of the caste certificate in which para 3.1 to para 3.4 are provided for immigrants. According to para 3.2 of that circular if an applicant files an application for issuance of a caste certificate whose parents or forefathers had migrated from another State then it was for him to file the caste certificate issued by the competent authority of that State from where they had migrated and a special certificate on Form No.III would be issued to that applicant if that caste is declared "SC" in the State of Madhya Pradesh. Hence, when the applicant applied for his caste certificate he did not produce the caste certificate issued by the competent officers of Amritsar Tahsil in the State of Punjab before the competent authority of District Guna and therefore High Power Scrutiny Committee had objected the procedure adopted by the Sub-Divisional Officer concerned and consequently the caste certificate dated 08.08.2008 issued by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Guna (M.P.) was cancelled and forfeited.
(19) As discussed above, due to legal illiteracy, it is possible that being a member of "Sikh" community, father or grand-father of the applicant Rajendra Singh would not have thought that they can claim for various reservations etc. on the basis of their caste and therefore the applicant Rajendra Singh and his family members have used the name of the community as "Sikh" while filling up column of caste in various applications and documents. However, it is pertinent to note that there is no evidence filed by the complainant to show that the information received from the office of Tahsildar of Tahsil Amritsar [State of Punjab] 19 Mcrc.5897.2014 Harvir Singh and others Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and other Mcrc.6319.2014 Smt. Kiran Jain Vs. Komal Prasad Shakya and other was manipulated by the applicant Rajendra Singh or his father Amreek Singh. One Sub-Inspector was sent for verification of that information and he found the information to be correct that the forefathers of applicant Rajendra Singh were registered as "Sansi" by caste in the office of Tahsildar of Tahsil Amritsar [State of Punjab]. It would be clear that due to such verification, S.P. Guna did not register any criminal case against any of the applicants, after getting the order of High Power Scrutiny Committee. When that document was not challenged and no evidence was produced that information or certificate issued by the Tahsildar, Amritsar, was not correct then it cannot be said that by filing of an application and getting a caste certificate dated 08.08.2008, the applicant Rajendra Singh had committed a crime of cheating. Similarly, if on the basis of information given by the senior members of the family, the applicant Amreek Singh had executed an affidavit in support of the applicant Rajendra Singh then it cannot be said that he participated in the conspiracy of cheating.
(20) In the order dated 10.08.2011 passed by the High Power Scrutiny Committee, no comments were given on the certificate or the information received from the office of Tahsildar of Tahsil Amritsar. Hence, though the certificate was cancelled and forfeited but no criminal aspect emerges from that cancellation order because the High Power Scrutiny Committee did not give any opinion that information received from the office of Tahsildar of Tahsil Amritsar was incorrect or such information was recorded in that office by fraudulent applications etc. 20 Mcrc.5897.2014 Harvir Singh and others Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and other Mcrc.6319.2014 Smt. Kiran Jain Vs. Komal Prasad Shakya and other (21) As discussed above that possibility cannot be ruled out that the applicant Rajendra Singh was not aware about his caste. He and his father were of the view that initially they were "Sikh" but when they obtained an information that amongst the Sikh community there are so many castes and they were of the caste "Sansi" then if the applicant has claimed for the right of that caste by moving an application to get a caste certificate and a caste certificate was also provided by Sub-Divisional Officer, Guna on 08.08.2008 then in the light of the information received from office of Tahsildar of Tahsil Amritsar [State of Punjab] the overt act of the applicants Rajendra Singh and Amreek Singh do not fall within the purview of cheating. When the applicant Rajendra Singh got an intimation that he belongs to "Sansi" caste which falls within the Scheduled Caste category then if he moved any application and collected some documents in support of his application then he had every right to prosecute his rights. Unless it was established that the information sent by office of Tahsildar of Tahsil Amritsar [State of Punjab] was incorrect or those were prepared due to fraudulent activities of the applicant Rajendra Singh or his father applicant Amreek Singh then prima facie it shall be presumed that the forefathers of the applicant Rajendra Singh were registered as the persons belonging to "Sansi" by caste at office of Tahsildar of Tahsil Amritsar [State of Punjab]. Hence, though the caste certificate was cancelled and forfeited by the High Power Scrutiny Committee but no criminal indication emerges by the cancellation of that certificate. Hence, if the applicant Rajendra Singh and his father Amreek Singh have tried to 21 Mcrc.5897.2014 Harvir Singh and others Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and other Mcrc.6319.2014 Smt. Kiran Jain Vs. Komal Prasad Shakya and other get an advantage of the caste of their forefathers whose caste was already registered soon after the year 1950 at the office of Tahsildar of Tahsil Amritsar [State of Punjab] then their conduct does not fall within the purview of cheating. Nobody is prohibited to get the advantage of his/her caste. It is a different thing that due to non- availability of proper evidence and without proceeding according to the appropriate procedure the Sub-Divisional Officer, Guna had issued a caste certificate in favour of the applicant Rajendra Singh and thereafter it was cancelled by the High Power Scrutiny Committee then still the applicant Rajendra Singh and Amreek Singh cannot be held guilty of offence of cheating. Hence, no offence under Section 420 of IPC or inferior offence of similar nature is prima facie made out against the applicants Rajendra Singh as well as Amreek Singh.
(22) On the basis of the aforesaid discussion, it would be apparent that no offence under Section 467, 468 or 471 of IPC is made out against any of the applicants either directly or with the help of Section 120-B of IPC because the caste certificate dated 08.08.2008 was not prima facie established to be forged. Similarly, in the light of the information given by office of Tahsildar of Tahsil Amritsar [State of Punjab] where the caste of the forefathers of the applicant Rajendra Singh is mentioned as "Sansi", no offence of cheating is made out against any of the applicants either directly or with the help of Section 120-B of IPC. Both the courts below did not consider the legal aspects of the case as discussed above and orders passed by the courts below are perverse. Though the present 22 Mcrc.5897.2014 Harvir Singh and others Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and other Mcrc.6319.2014 Smt. Kiran Jain Vs. Komal Prasad Shakya and other petitions are allowable against the orders passed by the courts below, however, applicants have also challenged the registration of complaint and therefore this Court is competent to quash the proceedings of the criminal complaint before the concerned court.
(23) In the light of the judgment passed by the Apex Court in the case of "M/s Pepsi Foods Ltd & Anr Vs. Special Judicial Magistrate & Ors" [1998 SCC (Cri.) 1400], "Umesh Kumar Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh" [AIR 2014 SC 1106] and "State Of Haryana and Ors vs Ch. Bhajan Lal And Ors" [AIR 1992 SC 604], it is the duty of the High Court that no person should be harassed by filing of a criminal case against that person without any basis.
(24) In the light of the aforesaid discussion, the petition filed by the applicants, namely, Harveer Singh, Amreek Singh and Rajendra Singh and the petition filed by Smt. Kiran Jain are hereby allowed. Both the orders passed by the courts below are hereby set aside. Proceedings of criminal complaint registered against the applicants as Criminal Case no.1072/2014 is hereby quashed. The concerned court is directed to drop the proceedings against all the aforesaid applicants.
(N.K. Gupta) Judge 28/06/2016 pd