Madhya Pradesh High Court
Amit Kumar Meena vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh Judgement ... on 14 February, 2014
1
M.Cr.C. No.4351 of 2011
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE MADHYA
PRADESH, JABALPUR
SB: HON. SHRI N.K.GUPTA,J
Misc. Criminal Case No.4351/2011
Amit Kumar Meena & another.
-Vs-
State of Madhya Pradesh
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shri Aditya Adhikari, Advocate for the applicants.
Shri G.S.Thakur, Panel Lawyer for the respondent-
State.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ORDER
(Passed on the 14th day of February, 2014) The applicants have preferred the present petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. against the order dated 23.2.2011 passed by the First Additional Sessions Judge, Bhopal in Criminal Revision No.277/2009 whereby the order dated 16.4.2009 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bhopal in Criminal Case No.21598/2008 was confirmed in which the learned JMFC dismissed the application filed by the applicants on the ground that the directions given by Hon'ble the Apex Court in the case of "Kumari Madhuri Patil Vs. Additional Commissioner, Tribal Development & others", (AIR 1995 SC 94) were not complied with, and therefore trial may be dropped.
2M.Cr.C. No.4351 of 2011
2. The brief facts of the case are that one Ram Prakash Pahariya resident of Rewai District Shivpuri had sent a criminal complaint to the Director General of Police, Bhopal that so many persons have obtained the job and admission in various colleges on the basis of fake caste certificate. He gave a list of such persons in his complaint. He also referred the decision of WP No.898/1990. The name of applicant No.1 Amit Kumar Meena was shown in the complaint at Sl.No.23. On enquiry it was found that the applicant No.1 had received a certificate declaring him a member of Scheduled Tribe as "Bheel Meena from Tahsildar Ratlam". On enquiry done by the Collector, Ratlam it was found that the caste certificate was fake and the applicant No.1 was a member of Tribe "Meena", which is shown in the list of Scheduled Tribes given in the Constitution for Sironj Tahsil of Madhya Pradesh only, whereas the applicant No.1 was found as a resident of District Raisen and not of District Ratlam. It was also found that the certificate was issued on the basis of affidavit given by the applicant No.2 and thereafter on the basis of report given by the Collector Ratlam a prosecution was initiated against the applicants and also the authorities of Maulana Azad College of Technology, Bhopal vide order dated 13.7.1998 3 M.Cr.C. No.4351 of 2011 expelled the applicant No.1 from their college due to bogus caste certificate.
3. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties.
4. The learned counsel for the applicants has submitted that the charge sheet was initiated against the applicants though no report was given by the competent authority as directed by Hon'ble the Apex Court in the case of Kumari Madhuri Patil (supra). The learned counsel for the applicants has also invited attention of this Court to the order passed by the Single Bench of this Court in the case of "Vikas Jagdish Shipuriya Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh", [2002(3) MPLJ 417] in which it was decided that if the guidelines given by Hon'ble the Apex Court in the case of Kumari Madhuri Patil (supra) are not followed, then no prosecution can be initiated against such defaulter.
5. After considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, the only question that arose before this Court is whether the charge sheet could be filed without following the directions given by Hon'ble the Apex Court in the case of Kumari Madhuri Patil (supra) or not. If the judgment of 4 M.Cr.C. No.4351 of 2011 Hon'ble the Apex Court in the case of Kumari Madhuri Patil (supra) is considered, then it would be apparent that in para 12 of the judgment the Hon'ble the Apex Court gave guidelines having 15 paras. Out of them, three paras are relevant for the present case. For the ready reference, the paras 11, 12 and 14 of the guidelines may be read as under:
"*****
11. The order passed by the Committee shall be final and conclusive only subject to the proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution.
12. No suit or other proceedings before any other authority should lie.
13. ******
14. In case, the certificate obtained or social status claimed is found to be false, the parent/guardian/ the candidate should be prosecuted for making false claim. If the prosecution ends in a conviction and sentence of the accused, it could be regarded as an offence involving moral turpitude, disqualification for elective posts or officers under the State or the Union or elections to any local body, legislature or the Parliament."
If the aforesaid guidelines are considered, then it would be apparent that it was directed to the concerned officers to get the verification of the caste certificate in relation to some appointment or admission in the institution as to how such certificate could be dealt with for its verification. In the present case, the certificate filed by the applicant No.1 was 5 M.Cr.C. No.4351 of 2011 already accepted and he was admitted in M.A.C.T. Bhopal. Under such circumstances, it was the duty of the officers of that College to follow the guidelines given by Hon'ble the Apex Court in the case of Kumari Madhuri Patil (supra). However, vide order dated 13.7.1998 the officers of M.A.C.T. expelled the applicant No.1 from the college. The applicants did not show their bonafide act against the order of expulsion and what steps they have taken and whether that order was cancelled from the High Court or not.
6. If the guidelines given by Hon'ble the Apex Court in the case of Kumari Madhuri Patil (supra) are considered, then by perusal of para 11, 12 and 14 of the guidelines, Hon'ble the Apex Court has directed that certificate be examined by higher authorities of the State so that there should not be any doubt about the verification of the certificate and thereafter it was mentioned that if any certificate is found forged, then a criminal prosecution may be initiated against that person, who submitted a forged certificate and obtained the benefits on the basis of such certificate. Also under those guidelines it is nowhere mentioned that without following the guidelines, no prosecution shall be done. Under such circumstances, if such 6 M.Cr.C. No.4351 of 2011 guidelines are not followed, then still the prosecution may be initiated.
7. When an FIR is lodged by any complainant with any of the police officer including the SHO or higher police officer, then it is for the police to investigate the matter and either to file a report under Section 173 of Cr.P.C. (charge sheet) or to file a report under Section 169 of Cr.P.C. In the present case, the complaint was sent to the Collector Ratlam and thereafter in the enquiry it was found that the applicants were residents of District Raisen and they could not get any caste certificate from Tahsil Ratlam. They were "Meena" by caste, which falls at Sl.No.32 in the list of Scheduled Tribes for Madhya Pradesh in the Constitution (ST Order 1950). They claimed themselves to be "Bheel Meena" which was shown at Sl.No.8 in that list. At this stage, I do not want to discuss much about merits of the case otherwise it may cause prejudice to the trial Court. However, it was prima facie apparent that the applicants were not in the tribe of either "Bheel" or "Bheel Meena" nor they were resident of District Ratlam. On the contrary, they were resident of District Raisen, whereas the tribe "Meena" was accepted as Scheduled Tribe for Sironj Sub Division only, and the Collector Ratlam prima facie 7 M.Cr.C. No.4351 of 2011 found the caste certificate to be fake and therefore after getting such a report investigation was initiated and the charge sheet was filed.
8. The learned counsel for the applicants invited attention of this Court to the order of Single Bench of this Court in the case of Vikas Jagdish Shipuriya (supra) in which the judgment of Hon'ble the Apex Court in the case of Kumari Madhuri Patil (supra) was relied upon and it was directed that no prosecution may be done without following the guidelines of that case. Actually in the case of Vikash Jagdish Shipuriya (supra) the Single Bench of this Court did not establish a new analogy to appreciate a new law but in that case the guidelines given by Hon'ble the Apex Court were appreciated. Under such circumstances, there was no law laid down by the Single Bench of this Court in the case of Vikash Jagdish Shipuriya (supra), and therefore that order cannot be considered as a precedent in the present case. However, if the guidelines of Hon'ble the Apex Court in the case of Kumari Madhuri Patil (supra) are considered, then it is nowhere prohibited by Hon'ble the Apex Court that no prosecution will be done if the guidelines are not followed. The provisions of investigation and filing of charge sheet in Cr.P.C. are 8 M.Cr.C. No.4351 of 2011 absolute and without arrangement of such provisions, the police is competent to investigate the matter and to file a charge sheet. It is the duty of the trial Court to consider the case on the basis of evidence collected and to decide it accordingly. In such circumstances, during the investigation if the guidelines given by Hon'ble the Apex Court in the case of Kumari Madhuri Patil (supra) were not followed, verbatim then it cannot be said that the present trial cannot be prosecuted by the police.
9. The applicants have preferred the present petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. to quash the proceedings of the trial Court, but in the grounds taken in the petition, it was not mentioned that the applicants sought quashment of the proceeding on the basis of merits of the case. However, the trial was initiated in the year 2008 and the applicants remained silent for three years. If they would have challenged the prosecution on the basis of the merits of the case, then certainly such type of application would have been filed three years back, but it is filed in the year 2011, and therefore it was delayed to consider the merits of the case. At this belated stage, if merits of the case are considered, then prejudice may be caused to the applicants unnecessarily. However, in short if 9 M.Cr.C. No.4351 of 2011 the evidence collected by the prosecution is considered for limited purpose of evaluation of the evidence to quash the proceeding, then it would be apparent that the applicants were residents of District Raisen. They were not the members of Tribe "Bheel Meena". They obtained the caste certificate from Tahsil Ratlam, and therefore prima facie the prosecution directed against them cannot be quashed even on merits.
10. On the basis of the aforesaid discussion, it is apparent that both the courts below have rightly dismissed the application and revision of the applicants. There is no illegality or perversity in the impugned orders passed by both the Courts below and there is no reason for any interference can be done in the orders of both the courts below by invoking inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. Consequently, the present petition filed by the applicants under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. is hereby dismissed.
11. A copy of this order be sent to both the Courts below for information.
(N.K.Gupta) Judge 14.02.2014 Ansari