Madhya Pradesh High Court
Ajay Kumar Goyal (Jatav) vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 18 April, 2016
CRR-158-2015
(AJAY KUMAR GOYAL (JATAV) Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)
18-04-2016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
PRINCIPAL SEAT AT JABALPUR
Cr.R.No.158/2015
Ajay Kumar Goyal & Another
VS.
State of Madhya Pradesh
â¦....................................................................................................
................
Shri Manikant Sharma, counsel for the petitioners.
Shri A.K. Singh, Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State.
â¦....................................................................................................
................
ORDER
(18.04.2016)
1. This criminal revision is directed against order dated 07.11.2014 passed by the Court of 11 th Additional Sessions Judge Bhopal in Sessions Trial No.771/2013, whereby a multi-headed charge under Sections 420, 467, 468 and 471 of the IPC was framed against each of the two accused persons/petitioners namely Ajay Kumar Goyal and Ramcharan Goyal.
2. The case of the prosecution before the trial Court in brief is that a complaint was made by one Ramprakash Pahariya to Director General of Police Bhopal to the effect that many persons belong to general category have taken benefit of the seats reserved for Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes in Medical and Engineering Colleges, on the basis of forged certificates. In the list appended to the complaint, name of petitioner Ajay Kumar Goyal was mentioned at serial no.31. He was alleged to have secured a seat in Maulana Abul Kalam Azad College of Technology at Bhopal, which was reserved for the candidates belonging to the Scheduled Castes. On investigation, it was found that accused/petitioner had taken admission in M.A.C.T, Bhopal in the year 1993 through P.E.T. on a seat reserved for Scheduled Castes representing himself to be a domicile of Madhya Pradesh on the basis of forged domicile and caste certificates. It was found that though, the petitioner Ajay Kumar Goyal belonged to Jatav Caste, which is mentioned at serial no.14 of the Scheduled Castes in Madhya Pradesh, he was not eligible for reservation in the State of Madhya Pradesh, as he was permanent resident of village Sikri Raja, District-Jalon in Uttar Pradesh. However, accused/petitioner Ramcharan Goel represented that they were residents of Durga Colony Murar, Gwalior and got a caste certificate from Deputy Collector, Gwalior. After due investigation, a charge-sheet against the petitioners Ajay Kumar Goyal and his father Ramcharan Goyal was filed.
3. The order framing charge has been assailed on behalf of the accused persons/petitioners mainly on the grounds of the birth certificate issued by Chief Registrar, Deaths and Births, Gwalior, (M.P.) which shows that accused Ajay Kumar Goyal was born on 17.10.1971 at Gwalior and his birth was registered on 27.10.1971. The petitioner has also filed a certificate dated 13.09.1993 purportedly issued by Head Mistress of New Model Children School, Murar, Gwalior, which certifies that accused Ajay Kumar Goyal studied in aforesaid School from Ist to IVth standard from 07.07.1976 to 10.05.1980 as a regular student. The petitioner has also filed domicile certificate issued by Nayab Tehsildar P.K. Garg showing him to be the resident of Murar, Gwalior. On the basis of aforesaid documents, it has been contended that the charge framed against the petitioner is groundless.
4. Learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State on the other hand has supported the impugned order.
5. It may be stated at the outset that in view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of State of Orissa Vs. Debendra Nath Padhi, AIR 2005 SC 359 that for the purpose of Sections 227 of the Cr.P.C., only documents produced under Section 173 of the code are relevant. The defence of the accused would not be relevant at that stage, as a roving/fishing inquiry and mini-trial at the stage of framing of charge, is not permissible at this stage. That apart, the main contention of the petitioner is that he is domiciled in the state of Madhya Pradesh on the basis of domicile certificate and the caste certificate filed by him; however, the authenticity of those two certificates could not be verified because the case number and the date was not mentioned on it. This fact has been stated in the letter of Tehsildar, Gwalior, written to Shri K.P.S. Chouhan, Inspector Criminal Investigation Department, Police Headquarter Bhopal on 25.02.2006. Likewise, letter dated 30.08.2003 written by Commissioner, Scheduled Castes Development, Madhya Pradesh, to the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Bhopal reveals that Ajay Goyal S/o Ramcharan Goyal was not found to be living at Durga Colony Murar, Gwalior. Pramod Kumar Garg, the then Nayab Tehsildar, Gwalior, has stated under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C. that he did not issue the domicile certificate A-927 to petitioner Ajay Kumar Goyal. The certificate does not bare his signatures and the seal affixed thereto also does not belong to him. That apart, the Office of Commissioner Scheduled Castes Development, Madhya Pradesh (State Level Scrutiny Committee) in its inquiry report has found that Ajay Kumar Goyal (Jatav) is domicile of Uttar Pradesh and as such was not entitled for benefit in the State of Madhya Pradesh.
6. In aforesaid circumstances, it cannot be said that there are no grounds for proceedings against petitioner Ajay Kumar Goyal under Sections 420, 467, 468 and 471 of the IPC. Since his father Ramcharan Goyal has sworn affidavit dated 25.09.1993, in support of the candidature of the petitioner Ajay Goyal for admission to aforesaid College, prima facie, his complicity in the matter can also not be denied.
7. On the basis of forgoing discussion, this Court is of the view that none of the petitioner is entitled to discharge. The impugned order does not suffer from any illegality, irregularity or impropriety warranting interference by this Court under the revisionary jurisdiction.
8. Consequently, this criminal revision deserves to be and is accordingly dismissed.
(C V SIRPURKAR) JUDGE