Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Delhi District Court

Shipra Singh vs State on 4 May, 2018

    IN THE COURT OF SHRI M.R. SETHI: ASJ, SPECIAL JUDGE-03
             NORTH-WEST, ROHINI COURTS, DELHI.


Criminal Revision 182/2017
CNR No: DLNW01-009930-2017


Shipra Singh,
D/o Late Shri K.N. Singh,
R/o 619, Saraswati Sadan,
Mukherjee Nagar, Near Batra Cinema,
New Delhi 110009.
                                   ..... Petitioner
Versus

1 State

2 Dilip Kumar,
  Registrar,
  Vivekananda Institute of Professional Studies,
  AU Block, Main Outer Ring Road,
  Pitampura,
  Delhi -110 034.
                                     ..... Respondents.

                                                   Revision arising out of order dated
                                                   17.8.17 passed case FIR No. 1225/15
                                                   P.S. Maurya Enclave.

Date of institution of the case :                                                         06.10.2017
Date when final arguments concluded :                                                     04.05.2018
Date of pronouncement of judgment :                                                       04.05.2018


ORDER:

1 Petitioner before this court has challenged order dated 17.8.17 passed by ld. Court of Shri Devender Nain, ACMM, N/W in case FIR .

No.1225/15, PS Maurya Enclave. Vide the impugned order ld. Trial court was pleased to order framing of charges U/s 420/467/468/471/120B IPC against the accused and co-accused Mukul.

2 After the revision petition was received on assignment, ld. PP for State (R-1) accepted notice. Notice was issued to R-2 and TCR summoned. After receipt of TCR and upon putting in appearance on behalf of R-2, arguments advanced were heard and hence the present order.

3 During course of his submission it was submitted by ld. Counsel for petitioner that the impugned order appears to have been passed in haste by ld. Trial court in as much as ld. Court concerned had not discussed any of the arguments advanced. ld. Counsel further submitted that the order under challenge was devoid of any necessary details as was required to be mentioned in an order on charge. It was further submitted that the ld trial court lost sight of the fact that the petitioner had no Menseria in the present case and infact herself was a victim of circumstances but had been placed in the dock as an accused. It was pointed out that the petitioner had never filed any forged or fabricated document alongwith her application seeking job and that in absence of the same, it could not be said that the petitioner had used any forged or fabricated document after having conspired to prepare the same. It was claimed that petitioner infact was a well read lady who had two Graduation Degrees, two Post Graduation Degrees and two Ph.Ds to her credit, besides voluminous papers and books published by her. It was claimed that it was unthinkable that a person of such caliber would stoop to the level of seeking a job on basis of .

forged degrees. As per ld. Counsel even at the time of seeking her current employment, the petitioner was already employed and was not in any dire need of a job. It was pointed out that at best petitioner can be said to have given incorrect information at the time of seeking employment but it could not be said that she had sought employment on basis of false and fabricated documents. It was prayed that the impugned order which apparently was a non speaking order be set aside and the petitioner be discharged.

4 Opposing, it has been submitted by ld. PP for State that the petitioner applied for teaching post with VIPS and had mentioned in her educational qualification that she had done Graduation i.e. BA (Hons) English from BBR Ambedkar University and did M.Phil from CMJ University Meghalaya in English literature and Ph.D from Monad University, Hapur. It was further submitted that although the petitioner had mentioned the aforesaid educational qualifications in her application form, despite repeated requests and despite requirement, she failed to furnish her original testimonials for verification purposes. It was claimed that after a complaint was filed by the University officials and FIR was subsequently registered thereupon, it transpired that the Graduation Degree, Post Graduation Degree mentioned by petitioner in her application form were forged and fabricated. It was claimed that the petitioner apparently had got prepared the same in conspiracy with other co-accused persons and had used the same to her benefit in order to cheat the University. It was submitted by ld. PP that ld. Trial court had rightly ordered framing of charges against the petitioner. 5 Ld. Counsel for R-2 during course of his submission has submitted that there was no irregularity in the impugned order and that .

the ld. Trial court had rightly ordered for framing of charges. During course of his submission ld. Counsel has placed reliance on Nakul Kohli Vs. State (Crl. M.C No.2029/2010 decided on 9.7.2010); State Vs. Mewa Ram (1977 JCC 210); A.S. Krishnan Vs. State of Kerala [2004 AIR (SC) 3229] & Munni Devi Vs. State of Rajasthan [SLP (Cr) No.2446/2001 decided on 6.11.2001].

6 This court has given thoughtful consideration to arguments advanced and has also perused the records.

7 It had been observed by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Kanti Bhadra Shah and Anr. Vs. State [2000 (1) SCC 722] that there was no legal requirement for trial court to write a lengthy order while framing charges. As such the impugned order cannot be faulted with for being a short and cryptic order.

8 In the present case while applying for the post of a teacher with VIPS, the petitioner in her application form had given her academic qualifications which have been enumerated herein above. The same are not being repeated. It would be pertinent to mention herein that the Post Graduation Degree (MA) from CMJ University has been mentioned in the form as being M.Phil.

9 During course of investigation it had transpired that the Graduation degree as well as Post Graduation degree relied upon by the petitioner to be her essential educational qualifications were found to be forged and fabricated. Certificates in that regard from the relevant Universities had been filed on record and are part of charge sheet.

10 It had been claimed on behalf of the petitioner that her post Graduation degree was genuine and alongwith the revision petition she .

had filed copy of certificate dated 4.9.17 issued by the Registrar of CMJ University. However, as per settled principle of law, at the stage of consideration of charge (which would include stage of revision against charge framed), courts of law can only look into the charge sheet and documents filed alongwith the same. A new document which is being sought to be placed on record by defence cannot be considered at this stage as at best it would be a probable defence of the accused. In that view of matter, the certificate sought to be relied upon by the petitioner cannot be looked into at this stage. 11 To sum up, what has transpired on record is that the petitioner in her application for the post has mentioned a Graduation and a Post Graduation degree as being her educational qualification and during course of investigation both had been found to be forged and fabricated.

12 Although it was claimed on behalf of the petitioner that besides the two degrees relied upon by the petitioner in her application form, she also held a Graduation and a Post Graduation Degree from Bhartiya Shiksha Parishad, fact remains that while seeking employment, petitioner had filled up the form mentioning only degrees of B.R. Ambedkar University and CMJ University, both of which were found to be fabricated. It is not in dispute that the original application form is in the handwriting of petitioner.

13 As regards claim of the petitioner that what had been submitted was an information and there was no user of the degrees alongwith the form in as much as the originals had never been furnished with the application form, in considered opinion of this court, by mentioning the degrees as her educational qualification in the application form, the .

petitioner can be said to have "used" the information and consequently used the fabricated degrees. It would not be out of place to mention herein that despite repeated opportunities, petitioner never produced the original or even copies of her degrees for the purpose of the same being verified by the University and only handed over copies to the police during course of investigation. So much for "absence of Menseria" as was being claimed on behalf of the petitioner. 14 Upon consideration of all the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case and on perusal of records, this court is of considered opinion that there is no irregularity or impropriety in the impugned order which appears to be a correct order passed as per facts and circumstances of the case. Consequently, this court does not find any merit in the revision petition and the same is accordingly dismissed. 15 The revision petition stands disposed off accordingly.

Announced in open court                                                 (M.R. SETHI)
on 4-5-2018                                                     ADDL.SESSIONS JUDGE - 03,
                                                                NORTH WEST, ROHINI COURTS,
                                                                         NEW DELHI.




.
(CR 182/2017 Shipra Singh Vs. The State)                                                                                      Page 6 of 6