Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Inder Kumar Goyal vs State & Anr on 3 May, 2013
Author: Vijay Bishnoi
Bench: Vijay Bishnoi
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR.
ORDER
S.B. CRIMINAL MISC. PETITION NO.460/2009
Inder Kumar Goyal Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr.
Date of order : 3rd May, 2013
PRESENT
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAY BISHNOI
Mr. Pankaj Gupta, for petitioner.
Mr. A.R. Nikub, Public Prosecutor
Mr. Umesh Shrimali for respondent No.2.
BY THE COURT:-
This criminal misc. petition has been preferred by the petitioner against the judgment dated 19.12.2008 whereby the Additional Sessions Judge, No.2 Sri Ganganagar (hereinafter referred to as "the revisional Court") has partly allowed the revision petition of the petitioner while confirming the order dated 17.5.2008 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Senior Division-I, Sri Ganganagar (hereinafter referred to as "the trial court") to the extent of taking cognizance against the petitioner for the offences punishable under Section 465 and 471 I.P.C., while quashing the order of taking cognizance against him for the offence punishable under Section 468 2 I.P.C.
Brief facts of the case are that the respondent No.2 Beg Raj filed a complaint in the trial court while alleging that when he was working as acting Principal of Seth Girdhari Lal Bhiyani Sanatan Dharam, Senior Secondary School, Sri Ganganagar on 15.9.1997, the petitioner, who was also working as Lecturer at the aforementioned college, had got prepared a forged experience certificate dated 15.9.1997 by putting forged signatures of the respondent No.2 on it and thereafter submitted it along with an application preferred in the Rajasthan Non-Governmental Educational Institutions Tribunal, Jaipur (hereinafter referred to as "the Tribunal") for getting certain reliefs in respect of payment of salary etc. It is alleged that the respondent No.2 had never issued any such certificate dated 15.9.1997 and his signature on it are fabricated one. After receiving the said complaint, the learned Magistrate forwarded the same for investigation under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. to Police Station Jawahar Nagar, Sri Ganganagar. The police registered an FIR No.251/2001 against the petitioner for the offences punishable under Sections 418, 420 and 193 I.P.C. and started investigation. After investigation, the 3 police filed a negative final report while concluding that though as per the FSL report the disputed signature on the alleged experience certificate dated 15.9.1997 are not matching with respondent No.2's admitted and specimen signatures but as the said certificate was produced by the accused before the Tribunal, only the said Tribunal can lodge complaint against the petitioner as per Sec.195 Cr.P.C. The police has also concluded that the offences punishable under Sections 418 and 419 I.P.C. are not made out as there is no evidence of any inducement on the part of the petitioner.
Being aggrieved with the final report, the respondent No.2 Beg Raj preferred a protest petition. The trial court after recording the statement of respondent Beg Raj took cognizance against the petitioner for the offences punishable under Sections 465, 468 and 471 I.P.C. vide order dated 17.5.2008.
Order dated 17.5.2008 was challenged by the petitioner in revision petition and the revisional Court vide order dated 19.12.2008 partly allowed the revision petition and quashed the order of taking cognizance against the petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 468 I.P.C. while affirming the order of taking 4 cognizance against the petitioner for the offences punishable under Sections 465 and 471 I.P.C.
The petitioner has challegned the order dated 19.12.2008 passed by the revisional Court as well as order dated 17.5.2008 passed by the trial court by way of this criminal misc. petition.
The learned counsel for petitioner has argued that the order of taking cognizance is solely based on the Forensic Science Laboratory report though the original experience certificate was never sent for comparison of the disputed signature with admitted and specimen signatures of respondent No.2 and as such the FSL report is doubtful and no reliance can be placed on it. It is further contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that in the FSL report itself, it is mentioned that the admitted signatures of respondent Beg Ram are dis- similar from his specimen signatures and, therefore, in such circumstances, the action of the court below of taking cognizance against the petitioner for the offence punishable under Sections 465 and 471 I.P.C. is not tenable in the eye of law. It is also contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the courts below have wrongly not taken into consideration the handwriting 5 expert report produced on behalf of the petitioner before the police at the time of investigation. It is further contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that no ingredients of offence punishable under Sections 465 and 471 I.P.C. are available in the case and, therefore, the action of taking cognizance against the petitioner for the said offence is absolutely illegal and is liable to be quashed.
Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor as well as learned counsel for the complainant has contended that from the material available on record prima facie case against the petitioner for committing offences punishable under Section 465 I.P.C. was made out because the fact of preparation of forged certificate and forged signatures of respondent No.2 Beg Raj on it was prima facie established. It is further contended that the petitioner used the said forged certificate as genuine despite knowing that it was forged and, therefore, prima facie offence punishable under Section 471 I.P.C. is also made out against the petitioner and it has been prayed that no interference is called for in the orders passed by the revisional Court and the criminal misc. petition filed by the petitioner is liable to be rejected.
6
This Court has considered the rival submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
The learned revisional Court has taken into consideration the fact that the respondent No.2 Beg Raj has specifically denied the issuance of certificate dated 15.9.1997 and has also denied his signature over the said certificate. During the course of investigation, the disputed signature of respondent No.2 Beg Ram were got compared with his admitted as well as specimen signatures in the Forensic Science Laboratory wherein it was found that there is dis-similarity in the disputed signature and admitted and specimen signatures of respondent No.2 Beg Raj and as such the ingredients of offence punishable under Section 465 I.P.C. are available on record. The learned revisional Court has further found that the said experience certificate was submitted by the petitioner along with application preferred by him before the Tribunal for claims regarding his service benefits while using the said forged certificate as genuine and, therefore, prima facie offence under Section 471 I.P.C. is proved against the petitioner. The learned revisional Court has also taken into consideration the fact that the 7 alleged experience certificate was prepared before the initiation of proceedings in the Tribunal and as such the provisions of Section 195 Cr.P.C. are not attracted.
From the record, it is clear that the respondent No.2 Beg Raj has denied his signatures on the alleged certificate and has also denied issuance of any such certificate passed by him. The FSL report speaks about the dis-similarity in the disputed signature and the admitted and specimen signatures of respondent No.2 Beg Raj. In such circumstance, prima facie ingredients of offence punishable under Section 465 I.P.C. are available on record and the trial court has not committed any illegality in taking cognizance against the petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 465 I.P.C. and the revisional Court has also not committed any illegality in affirming the same. It is not in dispute that the said certificate was submitted by the petitioner along with proceedings preferred by him before the Tribunal for claiming certain service benefits and as such the ingredients of offence punishable under Section 471 I.P.C. are also available on record.
In the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court does not find any illegality in the action of learned 8 Magistrate of taking cognizance against the petitioner for the offence punishable under Sections 465 and 471 I.P.C. The learned revisional Court has rightly quashed the order of taking cognizance against the petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 468 I.P.C. as no evidence of inducement on the part of the petitioner is available on record. The prima facie satisfaction of learned Magistrate for taking cognizance for the offence punishable under Section 465 & 471 I.P.C. cannot be said to be not based on any material and, therefore, this Court while exercising powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. cannot sit as an appellate Court on the prima facie satisfaction of learned Magistrate.
Hence, there is no force in this criminal misc. petition. The same is hereby dismissed.
[ VIJAY BISHNOI ], J.
babulal/