Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Suryaveer Singh vs State & Anr on 21 November, 2017
Author: Pushpendra Singh Bhati
Bench: Pushpendra Singh Bhati
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 2085 / 2017
Suryaveer Singh S/o Shri Madan Lal Raiger, Aged About 25 Years,
R/o 1-B-21, Naya Housing Board, Jodhpur Road, Pali.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State of Rajasthan Through Public Prosecutor.
2. The Registrar/ Secretary, Rajasthan University of Health
Sciences, Sector-18, Kumbha Marg, Pratap Nagar, Jodhpur.
----Respondents
_____________________________________________________
For Petitioner(s) : Mr.Mahesh Bora, Senior Advocate assisted by
Mr.Nishant Bora
For Respondent(s) : Mr.V.S.Rajpurohit PP for the State.
Mr.Sunil Bishnoi - CID, CB, Jodhpur.
_____________________________________________________
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI
Order Reserved on 09/11/2017 Pronounced on 21/11/2017
1. This criminal misc. petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been preferred for quashing FIR No.231/2011 registered at Police Station, Pratap Nagar, Jodhpur for the offences under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 419, 417 and 120B IPC and its entire subsequent investigation.
2. Brief facts of this case, as noticed by this Court are that one Jabbar Singh Jat has approached this Hon'ble High Court by way of filing S.B.Civil Writ Petition No.9952/2009, alleging impersonation by certain students in connection with the RPMT Examination, 2009, so as to procure admission for other students.
(2 of 8) [CRLMP-2085/2017]
3. This Hon'ble Court, while hearing the aforesaid writ petition, ordered constitution of a Committee headed by one Mr.P.K.Singh for the purpose of scrutinizing all the OMR Sheets, with a view to find out as to whether any student procured admission pursuant to RPMT Examination, 2009 by impersonation or not. Thereafter, this Hon'ble Court on 31.03.2011, ordered for registration of the FIR against the students, who were guilty and also proposed appropriate action for cancellation of their admission.
4. In compliance of the aforesaid order dated 31.03.2011, FIR No.231/2011 dated 24.05.2011 was registered at Police Station, Pratap Nagar, Jodhpur against the petitioner.
5. The petitioner, as stated in this petition, has completed his Medical Degree and has also been posted as Medical Officer at PHC, Kurkee, Block Jaitaran.
6. It is also stated in this petition that the petitioner earlier also has preferred a misc. petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. being S.B.Criminal Misc. Petition No.1229/2011. This Hon'ble Court, while disposing of the said petition vide order dated 04.07.2013 made a specific mention that only after the receipt of the FSL report, the investigating officer shall draw the final conclusion. In the meantime, the petitioner filed S.B.Civil Writ Petition No.7006/2011 before the Jaipur Bench of this Hon'ble Court.
7. It is further stated in this petition that vide order dated 27.01.2014, while deciding S.B.Civil Writ Petition No.7006/2011, the Hon'ble Court directed the respondents to get the FSL Report (3 of 8) [CRLMP-2085/2017] from one of the agencies, namely (i) Central Forensic Science Laboratory, CBI, New Delhi; (ii) Forensic Science Laboratory, Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi, Rohini, Delhi,
(iii) Central Forensic Science Laboratory, Hyderabad. Further, the Hon'ble Court has given specific directions to the effect that if the new FSL report concludes in favour of the accused-students, then the aforesaid order dated 31.03.2011 shall become inoperative.
8. In pursuance of the said order of the Hon'ble Court, the petitioner has furnished his specimen handwriting on 25.05.2015, which was forwarded to the Central Forensic Science Laboratory, New Delhi on 27.05.2015.
9. It is further stated in this petition that the petitioner had become aware of the fact that the Central Forensic Science Laboratory, New Delhi had concluded its report regarding the specimen handwriting of the petitioner in his favour. However, the petitioner is the only student against whom neither any charge- sheet has been filed, nor any adverse report has been received, which, as stated in this petition, is evident from the order dated 07.09.2016 passed by the Division Bench of this Court in D.B. Special Appeal (Writ) No.600/2014, which was preferred before the Division Bench against the order dated against S.B.Civil Writ Petition No.7006/2011. The said special appeal was dismissed and the petitioners were directed to file a review petition before the learned Single Judge. Thereafter, S.B.Civil Review Petition No.171/2016 was filed, which was dismissed vide order dated 07.12.2016. The learned Single Judge has observed that the FSL Report of fifteen students did not come in their favour, thereby (4 of 8) [CRLMP-2085/2017] proving the case of impersonation against the said fifteen students. However, no such report against the present petitioner has been received.
10. In the above backdrop the present misc. petition has been preferred.
11. For the purpose of present adjudication, the relevant portion of the order dated 27.01.2014 passed in S.B.Civil Writ Petition No.7006/2011 at Jaipur Bench, Jaipur reads as under:-
"(i) The respondents are directed to get report from any of the following agencies which are as under:
(a) Central Forensic Science Laboratory, (CBI), New Delhi.
(b) Forensic Science Laboratory, Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi, Sector 14, Rohini, Delhi - 110085.
(c) Central Forensic Science Laboratory, Osmania Institutional Area, Hyderabad.
To seek report regarding allegation of cheating by impersonation, the entire material would be sent by the respondent-University to any of the agencies named above and to have proper monitoring and coordination, the IG, Crime Bureau, Rajasthan, Jaipur is directed to act as a Co-ordinator for the aforesaid purpose. If the record exist in the court or elsewhere, it may be obtained.
(ii) The respondent-Rajasthan University of Health Sciences will co- perate with I.G., Crime Bureau, Rajasthan, Jaipur to get report at the earliest. The report may be submitted by the agency to whom it is assigned, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of the material/documents. The (5 of 8) [CRLMP-2085/2017] agency to whom work is assigned will examine the material and give its independent report after examining thumb impression, signature and hand writing of the petitioners to record their finding as to whether they indulge in cheating by impersonation or not.
(iii) If report comes adverse to the petitioners then impugned order would become effective and thereby admission would be treated as cancelled. If report comes favourable then impugned order would have no effect rather to be treated as set aside.
(iv) The respondent-University is directed to send copy of the inquiry report of P.K. Singh committee to the Forensic Science Laboratory concerned to see the areas of examination however it would not mean that inquiry report should be relied. The P.K. Singh committee report would be given only for their convenience to find out the areas of examination."
12. The order dated 06.05.2013 passed in S.B.Criminal Misc. Petition No.1229/2011 is also quoted as hereunder:-
"Learned counsel for the petitioner has filed a misc. application being Crl.M.A.No.297/2013. It has been averred in the application that the investigating officer in pursuance to the order passed by this Court on 27.02.2013, procured the thumb impressions and signatures of the petitioner for comparison but the specimen handwriting had not been taken for comparison with the disputed writings. It has been prayed in the application that the investigating officer be directed to procure the specimen handwriting of the petitioner for comparison with the disputed writings.
(6 of 8) [CRLMP-2085/2017] Learned Public Prosecutor does not contest this prayer but submits that in this case previously the comparison of the thumb impressions and the signatures were carried out under the directions of the superior officers of the Police.
Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the instant misc. application is accepted and the Investigating Officer is directed to procure the specimen handwriting of the petitioner and have the same compared with the disputed writings.
List after eight weeks.
Interim order to continue till then."
13. Learned counsel for the petitioner has tried to impress upon the Court that the specimen handwriting has not been taken after the aforesaid order dated 06.05.2013, and therefore, the respondents should not have gone ahead with the investigation.
14. Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the submission made on behalf of the petitioner and has shown from the case diary that the specimen handwriting of the petitioner has been taken after passing of the aforequoted order dated 06.05.2013.
15. Learned Public Prosecutor has also shown the reports, which are annexed with the case diary. In this series, learned Public Prosecutor has shown to this Court the report dated 24.02.2015 submitted with the cover note dated 09.03.2015 of the Fingerprint Division, Central Forensic Science Laboratory, Central Bureau of Investigation, New Delhi, which is subsequent to the orders passed earlier. As per the conclusion of the said report, the authorship of the questioned Hindi signatures marked as Q- 2607 to Q-2610 could not be connected with the writer of the (7 of 8) [CRLMP-2085/2017] standard signatures marked as A-3150 to A-3157 and A-5399 to A-5407 attributed to the present petitioner.
16. The conclusion of the expert shows that there is divergence, which is fundamental in nature and is beyond the range of natural variations. Thus, the report dated 24.02.2015 submitted with the cover note dated 09.03.2015 clearly pointed out that the candidate whose signatures are there on record is not the writer of the signatures, which have been given by the present petitioner.
17. Learned Public Prosecutor has also shown the report dated 26.10.2016 submitted with the cover note dated 07.11.2016, wherein it has been observed that the authorship of the questioned writings marked as Q-2609A, Q2610A, Q-3865 and Q-3866 could not be connected with the writer of the specimen writings marked as A-5399 to A-5407 attributed to the present petitioner.
18. Learned Public Prosecutor has further stated that the case diary and the aforesaid two reports show that they are in consonance with the directions of this Hon'ble Court.
19. Learned Public Prosecutor has also stated that since the examination was objective type, therefore, the comparisons have been accordingly made, and more comparisons are not possible. But since broadly, the investigators have arrived at the conclusion that the petitioner was not the person, who had actually given the examination, therefore, the matter does not call for any interference.
(8 of 8) [CRLMP-2085/2017]
20. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties as well as perusing the record of the case alongwith the orders reproduced hereinabove, this Court is of the opinion that the purport of the orders is that fresh FSL reports were to be obtained before proceeding with the investigation. The orders also stated that in such reports, if the petitioner is not found guilty, then no case shall be continued against the present petitioner.
21. This Court has carefully perused the aforesaid two reports i.e.dated 24.02.2015 submitted with the cover note dated 09.03.2015 as well as dated 26.10.2016 submitted with the cover note dated 07.11.2016 and found that both the reports indicated that the petitioner was not the person, who had actually given the examination and probably, the allegations of impersonation were correct. This Court also takes note of the fact that apart from the present case, fifteen other similar cases were registered, and in all the said fifteen cases, challan has been filed by the competent authority. However, without prejudice to the case of either of the parties and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the investigation, this Court is of the opinion that it is not a fit case for grant of indulgence under the constrained jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
22. With the aforesaid observations, the present misc. petition is dismissed.
(DR. PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI)J. Skant/-