Himachal Pradesh High Court
Sneh Lata & Anr vs State Of H.P. & Ors on 24 July, 2024
Neutral Citation No. ( 2024:HHC:5725 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr. MMO No. 232 of 2021 .
Reserved on: 11.07.2024 Date of Decision: 24.07.2024.
Sneh Lata & Anr. ...Petitioners
Versus
State of H.P. & Ors.
Coram
r to ...Respondents
Hon'ble Mr Justice Rakesh Kainthla, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No For the Petitioners : Mr. Vinod Thakur, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. Ajit Sharma, Deputy Advocate General, for respondent No.1- State.
Mr. Vijay Mokhta, Advocate, vice
Mr. Vijay Chaudhary, for
respondents No. 2 to 4.
Rakesh Kainthla, Judge
The petitioners have filed the present petition for quashing of FIR No.43 of 2019, dated 02.04.2019, registered at Police Station Chowari, Tehsil Chowari, District Chamba, H.P. for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 120-B, 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes.
::: Downloaded on - 24/07/2024 20:31:53 :::CIS 2420, 468, 471 & 201 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and the consequent proceeding arising out of the same.
.
2. Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to the present petition are that the respondent/informant made a complaint stating that petitioner No. 1 was serving as an Anganwari worker at Anganwari Centre Hatli Ballah, District Kangra. Petitioner No. 2 was a Government servant who retired as a pharmacist in the year 2006 from the Animal Husbandry Department. He was getting a salary of ₹ 12,000/- per month. The Government of Himachal Pradesh had issued a notification on 11.07.2017 for the appointment of Anganwari workers. As per the notification, the candidate should be a resident of the village where the Anganwari Centre is located, he should have a minimum qualification of matric, be aged between 21-45 years and his family member should not be in Government service. The members of the family separated as per the procedure laid down in the Panchayati Raj Act and Rule before 01.01.2004 having income less than ₹ 12,000/- per month were also eligible. Both the petitioners were living together and the income of the family exceeded the prescribed limit. The petitioners hatched a conspiracy and petitioner No. 1 applied to the Gram Panchayat to ::: Downloaded on - 24/07/2024 20:31:53 :::CIS 3 separate her and the family of petitioner No. 2. Gram Panchayat passed a resolution on 02.04.2006 to separate the families of the .
petitioners. The name of the petitioner No. 1 was expunged from the family of the petitioner No. 2 and was separately entered into the Parivar Register. Entries were made in the Register regarding the separation having been effected on 02.04.2006.
The petitioners changed the year from 2006 to 2004. Petitioner No. 1 succeeded in getting the appointment as an Anganwari worker based on the forged documents. The police registered the FIR and conducted the investigation. The specimen signatures of the petitioners were obtained. As per the report of the RFSL Dharamshala, the disputed signatures matched the specimen signatures and handwriting of the petitioners. The analyst also stated that there was a tempering with the register and the date was changed from 2006 to 2004. The family of the petitioners had an income of more than ₹12,000/- per month. The petitioners conspired to secure a government job by producing forged documents. As such, a challan was prepared and presented before the Court for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 120-B, 420, 468, 471 & 201 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
::: Downloaded on - 24/07/2024 20:31:53 :::CIS 43. Being aggrieved from the filing of the charge sheet, the petitioners have filed the present petition asserting that the .
allegations made in the FIR, even if accepted at their face value, do not constitute the commission of any offence. The petitioners have nothing to do with the commission of the offence. The record remained in the custody of the Secretary of the Gram Panchayat. He did not file any complaint regarding the tempering of the record. Petitioner No. 2 was serving in the Animal Husbandry Department and could not have tampered with the record. The Panchayat Secretary was not arrayed as an accused. He was the custodian of the record and the record could not have been tampered without his connivance. There is enmity between the complainant and the petitioners. Petitioner No. 1 was the widow and petitioner No. 2 was an aged person, who was suffering from multiple diseases. The police did not find out the truth and believed the version of the complainant.
Therefore, it was prayed that the present petition be allowed and the FIR be ordered to be quashed.
4. The petition is opposed by filing a reply by respondent No. 1/State taking preliminary objection regarding the lack of maintainability. The contents of the petition were ::: Downloaded on - 24/07/2024 20:31:53 :::CIS 5 denied on merits. It was asserted that the offences committed by the petitioners are not private. The public will suffer by .
quashing of the FIR. The police conducted the investigation and found sufficient material against the petitioners to show that they had forged the documents. The police filed the charge sheet before the Court and the matter was pending for consideration of charge on 23.07.2021.
5. Respondents No. 2 to 4 filed separate reply making preliminary submissions that the petitioners have concealed the material fact from the Court and have not come to the Court with clean hands. They forged entries in the Parivar register and obtained false Income Certificates to get a Government job.
Petitioner No. 1 was not eligible as per the qualifications for the post of Anganwari worker. The petitioners changed the year from 2006 to 2004. The Panchayat Secretary was told about this fact and he sent intimation to the BDO about the alteration.
Hence, a specific note was made regarding the date of the separation of the family to be read as 02.04.2006. The police have filed the challan and the matter is pending before the Competent Court of law. Therefore, it was prayed that the present petition be dismissed.
::: Downloaded on - 24/07/2024 20:31:53 :::CIS 66. I have heard Mr Vinod Thakur, learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr Ajit Sharma, learned Deputy Advocate .
General, for respondent No.1-State and Mr. Vijay Mokhta, Advocate, vice Mr Vijay Chaudhary, learned counsel for respondents No. 2 to 4.
7. Mr. Vinod Thakur, learned counsel for petitioners submitted that it was not possible for the petitioners to change the official record because the record is not in the custody of the petitioners. The petitioners were not benefited by any alteration in the record. The complaint was filed due to political rivalry.
Hence, he prayed that the present petition be allowed and the FIR be ordered to be quashed.
8. Mr. Ajit Sharma, learned Deputy Advocate General, for respondent No. 1/State submitted that the FIR disclosed the commission of a cognizance offence. The police conducted the investigation and found sufficient reasons to file the charge sheet before the Court. The learned Trial Court is seized of the matter and it has to determine the truthfulness or falsity of the allegations made in the complaint. Therefore, he prayed that the present petition be dismissed.
::: Downloaded on - 24/07/2024 20:31:53 :::CIS 79. Mr. Vijay Mokhta, learned counsel representing respondents No. 2 to 4 submitted that the investigating agency .
had found that the alteration was made by the petitioners. A prima facie case of a commission of cognizable offence is made out. Therefore, he prayed that the present petition be dismissed.
10. I have given considerable thought to the submissions given at the bar and have gone through the records carefully.
11. The law regarding the exercise of jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. was considered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in A.M. Mohan v. State, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 339, wherein it was observed: -
9. The law with regard to the exercise of jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr. P.C. to quash complaints and criminal proceedings has been succinctly summarized by this Court in the case of Indian Oil Corporation v. NEPC India Limited (2006) 6 SCC 736: 2006 INSC 4521 after considering the earlier precedents. It will be apposite to refer to the following observations of this Court in the said case, which read thus:
"12. The principles relating to the exercise of jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to quash complaints and criminal proceedings have been stated and reiterated by this Court in several decisions. To mention a few--Madhavrao Jiwajirao Scindia v. Sambhajirao Chandrojirao Angre [(1988) 1 SCC 692: 1988 SCC (Cri) 234], State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal [1992 Supp (1) SCC 335: 1992 SCC (Cri) 426], Rupan Deol Bajaj v. Kanwar Pal Singh Gill [(1995) 6 SCC 194: 1995 SCC (Cri) 1059], Central Bureau of Investigation v. Duncans Agro ::: Downloaded on - 24/07/2024 20:31:53 :::CIS 8 Industries Ltd. [(1996) 5 SCC 591: 1996 SCC (Cri) 1045], State of Bihar v. Rajendra Agrawalla [(1996) 8 SCC 164: 1996 SCC (Cri) 628], Rajesh Bajaj v. State NCT of Delhi [(1999) 3 SCC .
259: 1999 SCC (Cri) 401], Medchl Chemicals & Pharma (P) Ltd. v. Biological E. Ltd. [(2000) 3 SCC 269: 2000 SCC (Cri) 615], Hridaya Ranjan Prasad Verma v. State of Bihar [(2000) 4 SCC 168: 2000 SCC (Cri) 786], M. Krishnan v. Vijay Singh [(2001) 8 SCC 645: 2002 SCC (Cri) 19] and Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. v. Mohd. Sharaful Haque [(2005) 1 SCC 122 : 2005 SCC (Cri) 283]. The principles, relevant to our purpose are:
(i) A complaint can be quashed where the allegations made in the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety, do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out the case alleged against the accused.
For this purpose, the complaint has to be examined as a whole, but without examining the merits of the allegations. Neither a detailed inquiry nor a meticulous analysis of the material nor an assessment of the reliability or genuineness of the allegations in the complaint is warranted while examining prayer for quashing a complaint.
(ii) A complaint may also be quashed where it is a clear abuse of the process of the court, as when the criminal proceeding is found to have been initiated with mala fides/malice for wreaking vengeance or to cause harm, or where the allegations are absurd and inherently improbable.
(iii) The power to quash shall not, however, be used to stifle or scuttle a legitimate prosecution. The power should be used sparingly and with abundant caution.
(iv) The complaint is not required to verbatim reproduce the legal ingredients of the offence alleged. If the necessary factual foundation is laid in the complaint, merely on the ground that a few ::: Downloaded on - 24/07/2024 20:31:53 :::CIS 9 ingredients have not been stated in detail, the proceedings should not be quashed. Quashing of the complaint is warranted only where the complaint is .
so bereft of even the basic facts which are necessary for making out the offence.
(v.) A given set of facts may make out : (a) purely a civil wrong; (b) purely a criminal offence; or (c) a civil wrong as also a criminal offence. A commercial transaction or a contractual dispute, apart from furnishing a cause of action for seeking remedy in civil law, may also involve a criminal offence. As the nature and scope of a civil proceeding are different from a criminal proceeding, the mere fact that the complaint relates to a commercial transaction or breach of contract, for which a civil remedy is available or has been availed, is not by itself a ground to quash the criminal proceedings. The test is whether the allegations in the complaint disclose a criminal offence or not.
12. Similar is the judgment in Maneesha Yadav v. State of U.P., 2024 SCC OnLine SC 643, wherein it was held: -
12. We may gainfully refer to the following observations of this Court in the case of State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal1992 Supp (1) SCC 335: 1990 INSC 363:
"102. In the backdrop of the interpretation of the various relevant provisions of the Code under Chapter XIV and of the principles of law enunciated by this Court in a series of decisions relating to the exercise of the extraordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code which we have extracted and reproduced above, we give the following categories of cases by way of illustration wherein such power could be exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, ::: Downloaded on - 24/07/2024 20:31:53 :::CIS 10 though it may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently channelised and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to .
give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised.
(1) Where the allegations made in the first information report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused.
r to (2) Where the allegations in the first information report and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code.
(3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused. (4) Where the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code.
(5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that ::: Downloaded on - 24/07/2024 20:31:53 :::CIS 11 there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused.
(6) Where there is an express legal bar .
engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party.
r to (7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge.
103. We also give a note of caution to the effect that the power of quashing a criminal proceeding should be exercised very sparingly and with circumspection and that too in the rarest of rare cases; that the court will not be justified in embarking upon an enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the FIR or the complaint and that the extraordinary or inherent powers do not confer an arbitrary jurisdiction on the court to act according to its whim or caprice."
13. The present petition has to be considered as per the parameters laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
14. The report of the analysis shows that there was an alteration in the entry the year 2006 was changed to 2004 and the disputed handwriting matched with the specimen ::: Downloaded on - 24/07/2024 20:31:53 :::CIS 12 handwriting of the petitioners. As per the documents collected during the investigation, the resolution was passed on .
02.04.2006 and entry in the Parivar register was also made on the same day which was altered by the petitioners to read as 02.04.2004 as per the report of the analysis.
15. Section 463 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) defines forgery as making any false document or false electronic record or part of a document or electronic record, with intent to cause damage or injury, to the public or 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. Section 464 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) defines the making of false documents and reads that, if any, person without any authority alters documents after it has been made, it amounts to making a false document. Illustration "a" reads that where a person adds cypher to ₹10,000/- to make it ₹1,00,000/- a forgery is committed.
16. In the present case, the date of separation was recorded as 02.04.2006. The year in the document was altered ::: Downloaded on - 24/07/2024 20:31:53 :::CIS 13 from 2006 to 2004; hence, there was an alteration after the document was made. Such altered document was used for .
securing a job by petitioner No. 1; thus, it was made with the intent to fraud a person who was to offer the job and the case of the petitioners would fall within the definition of the forgery.
17. It was submitted that as per the Rules, the family should have been legally separated on or before 01.01.2004 and the alteration of the date from 02.06.2006 to 02.04.2004 would not assist the petitioners in any manner. This submission is not relevant because the altered Parivar register was submitted to the Department and the Department was deceived by believing that the family had separated in the year 2004 and not in the year 2006. Hence, the date mentioned in the Rule will not help the petitioners.
18. It was submitted that the complaint was filed due to political rivalry and is liable to be quashed. This submission is not acceptable. It was laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ramveer Upadhyay v. State of U.P., 2022 SCC OnLine SC 484 that a complaint cannot be quashed because it was initiated due to political rivalry. It was observed:
::: Downloaded on - 24/07/2024 20:31:53 :::CIS 14"30. The fact that the complaint may have been initiated by reason of political vendetta is not in itself grounds for quashing the criminal proceedings, as observed by .
Bhagwati, CJ in Sheonandan Paswan v. State of Bihar (1987) 1 SCC 2884. It is a well-established proposition of law that a criminal prosecution if otherwise justified and based upon adequate evidence, does not become vitiated on account of mala fides or political vendetta of the first informant or complainant. Though the view of Bhagwati, CJ in Sheonandan Paswan (supra) was the minority view, there was no difference of opinion with regard to this finding. To quote Krishna Iyer, J., in State of Punjab v. Gurdial Singh (1980) 2 SCC 471, "If the use of power is of the fulfilment of a legitimate object the actuation or catalysation by malice is not legicidal."
Xxxx
39. In our considered opinion criminal proceedings cannot be nipped in the bud by exercise of jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. only because the complaint has been lodged by a political rival. It is possible that a false complaint may have been lodged at the behest of a political opponent. However, such a possibility would not justify interference under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. to quash the criminal proceedings. As observed above, the possibility of retaliation on the part of the petitioners by the acts alleged, after closure of the earlier criminal case cannot be ruled out. The allegations in the complaint constitute an offence under the Atrocities Act. Whether the allegations are true or untrue, would have to be decided in the trial. In the exercise of power under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., the Court does not examine the correctness of the allegations in a complaint except in exceptionally rare cases where it is patently clear that the allegations are frivolous or do not disclose any offence. The Complaint Case No. 19/2018 is not such a case which should be quashed at the inception itself without further Trial. The High Court rightly ::: Downloaded on - 24/07/2024 20:31:53 :::CIS 15 dismissed the application under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C."
19. Therefore, the FIR cannot be quashed because it was .
lodged by the political rival of the petitioners.
20. It was submitted that the contents of the FIR are false, petitioner No. 2 was employed as a Pharmacist in the Animal Husbandry Department and he could not have forged the documents. This submission is not to be seen at this stage. It was laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Priyanka Jaiswal vs. State of Jharkhand, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 685 that the Court exercises extra-ordinary jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. and cannot conduct a mini-trial or enter into an appreciation of an evidence of a particular case. It was observed:-
"13. We say so for reasons more than one. This Court in catena of Judgments has consistently held that at the time of examining the prayer for quashing of the criminal proceedings, the court exercising extra-ordinary jurisdiction can neither undertake to conduct a mini-trial nor enter into appreciation of evidence of a particular case. The correctness or otherwise of the allegations made in the complaint cannot be examined on the touchstone of the probable defence that the accused may raise to stave off the prosecution and any such misadventure by the Courts resulting in proceedings being quashed would be set aside. This Court in the case of Akhil Sharda 2022 SCC OnLine SC 820 held to the following effect:::: Downloaded on - 24/07/2024 20:31:53 :::CIS 16
"28. Having gone through the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court by which the High Court has set aside the criminal proceedings in the .
exercise of powers under Section 482 Cr. P.C., it appears that the High Court has virtually conducted a mini-trial, which as such is not permissible at this stage and while deciding the application under Section 482 Cr. P.C. As observed and held by this Court in a catena of decisions no mini-trial can be conducted by the High Court in the exercise of powers under Section 482 Cr. P.C. jurisdiction and at the stage of deciding the application under Section 482 Cr. P.C., the High Court cannot get into appreciation of evidence of the particular case being considered."
21. A similar view was taken in Maneesha Yadav's case (supra), wherein it was held that: -
"13. As has already been observed hereinabove, the Court would not be justified in embarking upon an enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the FIR or the complaint at the stage of quashing of the proceedings under Section 482 Cr. P.C. However, the allegations made in the FIR/complaint, if taken at its face value, must disclose the commission of an offence and make out a case against the accused. At the cost of repetition, in the present case, the allegations made in the FIR/complaint even if taken at its face value, do not disclose the commission of an offence or make out a case against the accused. We are of the considered view that the present case would fall under Category-3 of the categories enumerated by this Court in the case of Bhajan Lal (supra).
14. We may gainfully refer to the observations of this Court in the case of Anand Kumar Mohatta v. State (NCT of Delhi), Department of Home(2019) 11 SCC 706: 2018 INSC 1060:::: Downloaded on - 24/07/2024 20:31:53 :::CIS 17
"14. First, we would like to deal with the submission of the learned Senior Counsel for Respondent 2 that once the charge sheet is filed, the petition for .
quashing of FIR is untenable. We do not see any merit in this submission, keeping in mind the position of this Court in Joseph Salvaraj A. v. State of Gujarat [Joseph Salvaraj A. v. State of Gujarat, (2011) 7 SCC 59 : (2011) 3 SCC (Cri) 23]. In Joseph Salvaraj A. [Joseph Salvaraj A. v. State of Gujarat, (2011) 7 SCC 59 : (2011) 3 SCC (Cri) 23], this Court while deciding the question of whether the High Court could entertain the Section 482 petition for quashing of FIR when the charge-sheet was filed by the police during the pendency of the Section 482 petition, observed : (SCC p. 63, para 16) "16. Thus, the general conspectus of the various sections under which the appellant is being charged and is to be prosecuted would show that the same are not made out even prima facie from the complainant's FIR. Even if the charge sheet had been filed, the learned Single Judge [Joesph Saivaraj A. v. State of Gujarat, 2007 SCC OnLine Guj 365] could have still examined whether the offences alleged to have been committed by the appellant were prima facie made out from the complainant's FIR, charge-sheet, documents, etc. or not."
22. Hence, it is not permissible for the Court to go into the truthfulness or otherwise of the allegations.
23. A charge sheet has been filed before the Court. The learned Trial Court is seized of the matter. It was laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Iqbal v. State of U.P., (2023) 8 SCC ::: Downloaded on - 24/07/2024 20:31:53 :::CIS 18 734: 2023 SCC OnLine SC 949 that when the charge sheet has been filed, learned Trial Court should be left to appreciate the same. It .
was observed:
"At the same time, we also take notice of the fact that the investigation has been completed and charge-sheet is ready to be filed. Although the allegations levelled in the FIR do not inspire any confidence particularly in the absence of any specific date, time, etc. of the alleged offences, we are of the view that the appellants should prefer a discharge application before the trial court under Section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC). We say so because even according to the State, the investigation is over and the charge sheet is ready to be filed before the competent court. In such circumstances, the trial court should be allowed to look into the materials which the investigating officer might have collected forming part of the charge sheet. If any such discharge application is filed, the trial court shall look into the materials and take a call whether any discharge case is made out or not."
24. Thus, this Court should not exercise extraordinary jurisdiction when the learned Trial Court is seized of the matter.
25. Therefore, it is not possible to quash the FIR in the exercise of the extraordinary jurisdiction of the Court. The allegations in the FIR show the commission of cognizable offences and they are to be tested by leading evidence before the learned Trial Court.
::: Downloaded on - 24/07/2024 20:31:53 :::CIS 1926. Thus, the present petition fails and the same is dismissed.
.
27. The observation made herein before shall remain confined to the disposal of the petition and will have no bearing, whatsoever, on the merits of the case.
(Rakesh Kainthla) Judge 24th July, 2024 (Shamsh Tabrez) ::: Downloaded on - 24/07/2024 20:31:53 :::CIS