Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Smt Mamta vs State Of Rajasthan Through Pp ... on 9 January, 2024
Author: Sudesh Bansal
Bench: Sudesh Bansal
[2024:RJ-JP:2100]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 6706/2015
Smt Mamta W/o Shri Kartar Singh, presently holding the post of
Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat Bajna, Panchayat Samiti Bayana,
Distt. Bharatpur (Rajasthan)
----Petitioner
Versus
State of Rajasthan through PP
----Respondent
Connected With
S.B. Criminal Writ Petition No. 79/2018
Smt. Mamta W/o Shri Kartar Singh, 35 years, Presently Holding
The Post of Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat Bajna, Panchayat Samiti
Bayana, Distt. Bharatpur (Rajasthan)
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State of Rajasthan through PP.
2. The Metropolitan Magistrate through Presiding Officer No.11,
Jaipur Metropolitan.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Ms. Naina Saraf
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Chandragupt Chopra, PP
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDESH BANSAL
Order
09/01/2024
REPORTABLE
1. Both these petitions have been preferred by the petitioner-
Smt. Mamta, invoking inherent powers of the High Court
envisaged under Section 482 Cr.P.C., seeking to quash the FIR
No.253/2015 registered at Police Station Ashok Nagar, Jaipur for
offences under Sections 420, 466, 468, 471, 193 and 218 IPC so
also to quash all criminal proceedings emanating therefrom
including filing of the charge-sheet and framing of charges for
such offences in criminal case No.323/2016 titled State Vs. Mamta
(Downloaded on 02/02/2024 at 09:13:16 PM)
[2024:RJ-JP:2100] (2 of 25) [CRLMP-6706/2015]
Gurjar pending before the Court of Additional Civil Judge and
Metropolitan Magistrate No.11, Jaipur Metropolitan I.
2. As per current status report, in the present criminal case
after framing charges on 03.02.2017, the case is pending at the
stage of prosecution evidence.
3. The factual matrix of the case, as culled out from the record,
in nutshell, is that:
3.1 One FIR No.93/2014 for offences under Sections 354, 420,
384 IPC was registered by one Ms. Nidhi Sahu at Police Station
Pratap Nagar, Jaipur City (East) against her Guru Shri. Gaurakhi
Nagar levelling an allegation that she came in contact to Shri
Gaurakhi Nagar through her parents and she was sent from Datiya
(MP) to Jaipur with Guruji Shri Gaurakhi Nagar by her parents for
undergoing studies of M. Pharma. Shri Gaurakhi Nagar, was a
person to be trusted because he was her Guruji, hence, under
such belief, Guruji, took her from Jaipur to Bayana and got her
signatures on few papers and also in a register. Thereafter, she
came back to Datiya (MP) to live with her mother. On 16.01.2014,
Guruji-Shri Gaurakhi Nagar came at her house and caught her so
also did some other obscene acts stating that they are married
now as have entered into marriage with each other at Bayana.
Hence, she made a complaint. On such complaint of Ms. Nidhi
Sahu, after investigation by the Police, offences under Sections
420, 384, 376 were prima facie found proved against accused Shri
Gaurakhi Nagar and he was arrested. Charge-sheet was filed
against him. It appears that the accused Shri Gaurakhi Nagar for
seeking release on bail, moved one S.B. Criminal Writ Petition
(Downloaded on 02/02/2024 at 09:13:16 PM)
[2024:RJ-JP:2100] (3 of 25) [CRLMP-6706/2015]
No.5550/2015 before the Rajasthan High Court at Jaipur Bench. In
that petition, some factual dispute arose about age, marital status
of Mr. Gaurakhi Nagar so also about number of children he already
had, hence, learned Single Judge of the High Court vide order
dated 21.07.2015 directed the Public Prosecutor to ask the
Investigating Officer to find out age of the present petitioner i.e.
Shri Gaurakhi Nagar, about his marital status, so also to ascertain
as to how many children, he already had.
3.2 It appears that under such directions of the High Court
dated 21.07.2015 to make an enquiry to ascertain the correct
facts about the age, number of children so also the marital status
of Shri Gaurakhi Nagar with his wife, the concerned Investigating
Officer deputed one head constable Shri Sagarmal, who visited the
original residence place of accused Mr. Gaurkahi Nagar, Village
Bajna and collected certain documents like a certificate dated
24.07.2015 from petitioner Smt. Mamta, the then Sarpanch of
village Bajna, on the letter head of Gram Panchayat, Bajna;
photocopy of one Talaqnama executed between Mr.Gaurkahi Nagar
and his wife smt. Rama Devi; a letter No.725 dated 24.07.2015
from the office of Nagar Palika, Bayana; copy of ration card etc.
That apart, the Investigating Officer also collected additional
documents of voters list from the website of Election Commission;
Bank statements from Axis Bank and ICICI Bank pertaining to
accused-Gaurakhi Nagar. On the basis of such collected
documents, the Investigating Officer presented factual report
dated 28.07.2015 before the Public Prosecutor to be presented
before the High court in the proceedings of S.B. Criminal Writ
(Downloaded on 02/02/2024 at 09:13:16 PM)
[2024:RJ-JP:2100] (4 of 25) [CRLMP-6706/2015]
Petition No.5550/2015. It was opined in the factual report that a
certificate dated 24.07.2015 was given by the present petitioner
i.e. Mamta Gurjar on the letter head of Gram Panchayat Bajna,
who was the Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat Bajna. Apart from
certificate of petitioner, other documents i.e. copy of letter No.725
dated 24.07.2015 issued from the office of Nagar Palika, Bayana
along with photocopy of ration card of Gaurakhi Nagar @ Govind
Prasad showing his age to be 42 years, name of his wife-Smt.
Rama Devi and details of his four children were also produced.
Additional documents of voters list dated 01.01.2014 obtained
from Internet from the website of Election Commission; the Bank
statements from Axis Bank and ICICI Bank belonging to Mr.
Gaurakhi Nagar, were also placed on record. The High Court on
the basis of such documents made few observations, in respect of
marital status, age and number of children of Shri Gaurakhi Nagar
and observed in its order dated 28.07.2015 that there is no formal
decree of divorce of Mr. Gaurakhi Nagar with his wife Smt. Rama
Devi, though, a divorce decree exists, however, it is admitted fact
that accused applicant is living separately from his wife whereas
the certificate given by the Sarpanch shows the fact otherwise;
the voter list shown by the learned counsel for complainant
indicates eight children from the wedlock of accused applicant and
his wife, whereas Sarpanch has narrated the fact having about
four children. In that view, the Investigating Officer so also the
Sarpanch were directed to remain present by the High Court vide
order dated 28.07.2015.
(Downloaded on 02/02/2024 at 09:13:16 PM)
[2024:RJ-JP:2100] (5 of 25) [CRLMP-6706/2015]
3.3 Thereafter, it appears from the record that one Mr. K.P.
Singh, Sub-Inspector, again made an enquiry about number of
children of Shri Gaurakhi Nagar and found that he had eight
children from his wife Rama Devi, their names are mentioned in
the FIR. Mr. K.P. Singh, also collected some additional documents
of Shri Gaurakhi Nagar including Driving License, Form-D etc.
Then on next date of hearing before the High Court, on
04.08.2015, it was disclosed by the concerned SHO that accused
Shri Gaurakhi Nagar is of above 68 years of age and have eight
children. Since on 04.08.2015, the Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat
Bajna i.e. the present petitioner was also present in the High
Court in person, who confessed that her certificate dated
24.07.2015 does not contain correct facts about exact age and
number of children of Mr.Gaurakhi Nagar, and she pleaded excuse.
In such backdrop of facts and on appreciation of various
documents, the High Court, prima facie, observed in its order
dated 04.08.2015 that the certificate dated 24.07.2015 given by
the Sarpanch contains false and incorrect information about age
and number of children of accused Shri Gaurakhi Nagar, therefore,
the Investigating Officer was directed to register the case against
Sarpanch for producing false document in judicial proceedings. For
ready reference, the relevant portion of the order dated
04.08.2015, on the basis of which the impugned FIR on
07.08.2015 was got registered against the petitioner by the SHO,
Police Station Pratap Nagar before the Police Station Ashok Nagar,
Jaipur reads as under:-
(Downloaded on 02/02/2024 at 09:13:16 PM)
[2024:RJ-JP:2100] (6 of 25) [CRLMP-6706/2015]
"...I have considered the rival submissions of the parties and
find that during the course of arguments, the petitioner had
tried to mislead the court not only narrating incorrect facts
about his age but for the number of children........The
certificate has been given by the sarpanch containing
incorrect facts regarding petitioner. In view of the above, the
I.O. is directed to register the case against Sarpanch as it
was given at the stage when the court was trying to find
truth of the statement made by the petitioner. The Sarpanch,
present in the court, prayed for pardon which cannot be
granted looking to the fact that time and again the accused
and other, conduct themselves, taking the court to be
granted, and accordingly make false statement as action is
not taken against them. Such a practise cannot be endorsed
otherwise sanctity of the court would be lost. The prayer for
pardon made by the sarpanch was not accepted."
(underline is mine)
3.4 Thus, in pursuance to the order dated 04.08.2015 passed by
the High Court in SB Criminal Writ Petition No.5550/2015,, and in
the backdrop of above referred facts, the impugned FIR
No.253/2015 came to be registered against the petitioner. The
crux of the matter is that the I.O. was directed to register a case
against the petitioner giving false information on the letter head of
Gram Panchayat Bajna dated 24.07.2015 in respect of accused
Shri Gaurakhi Nagar, more particularly, about his correct age and
exact number of children.
4. Learned counsel for petitioner fervently and vehemently
raised following contentions that:
4.1 Learned counsel for petitioner pointed out that in the present
criminal case, only allegation against petitioner is, for issuing a
certificate dated 24.07.2015 on the letter head of the office of
Gram Panchayat, Bajna in the capacity of Sarpanch, disclosing the
age of one person Shri Gaurakhi Nagar as 47 years and about his
marital status to be married with one Smt. Rama Devi and
indicating that he had four children, two daughter and two sons.
(Downloaded on 02/02/2024 at 09:13:16 PM)
[2024:RJ-JP:2100] (7 of 25) [CRLMP-6706/2015]
Whereas from the other documents, age of Mr.Gaurakhi Nagar was
noticed to be 68 years and he had eight children in number. It has
been contended that such certificate was issued by the petitioner,
following the details of Mr.Gaurakhi Nagar as indicated in his
family ration card. But such certificate issued by the petitioner
was, prima facie, found to be false and containing incorrect
information. The High Court vide order dated 04.08.2015, passed
in SB Criminal Writ Petition No.5550/2015, in contrast to other
documents of voters list etc. of accused Shri Gaurakhi Nagar and
therefore, the High Court directed the Investigating Officer to
register a case against the petitioner for producing false
document.
4.2 Learned counsel for petitioner pointed out that the High
Court in its order dated 04.08.2015 never issued directions to
lodge a FIR but directions were issued to register the case against
Sarpanch for giving false information on the letter head dated
24.07.2015. Therefore, at the most, for such an act of giving false
information, offence under Section 193 IPC is make out and since
such an offence is non-cognizable, the recourse of law available to
prosecute the petitioner for such an offence under Section 193 IPC
was only by way of filing criminal complaint before competent
Court of judicial Magistrate as per the procedure contained under
Section 340 Cr.P.C. To buttress her contention, learned counsel for
petitioner has placed reliance on the judgment of Hon'ble
Supreme Court in case of M.S. Ahlawat Vs. State of Haryana
[(2000)1 SCC 278].
(Downloaded on 02/02/2024 at 09:13:16 PM)
[2024:RJ-JP:2100] (8 of 25) [CRLMP-6706/2015]
4.3 Learned counsel for petitioner further submits that offence
under Section 466 IPC for preparing a forged certificate or
document by the public servant in his official capacity, is also a
non-cognizable offence, which cannot be investigated by the police
by way of registering FIR.
Thus, it has been urged that as per admitted case of
prosecution, no cognizable offence is make out against petitioner
and therefore, in light of celebrated judgment of the Supreme
Court in case of State of Haryana V. Bhajan Lal [1992
Supp(1) SCC 335], the registration of impugned FIR was in
sheer misuse of process of law as such the impugned FIR deserves
to be quashed.
4.4 It has further been contended that from bare perusal of
contents of impugned FIR, on their face value, no case against
petitioner for offences under Section 420, 467, 468, 471 and 218
IPC is make out. Placing reliance on the judgment of Hon'ble
Supreme Court in case of Samir Sahay @ Sameer Sahay Vs.
State of UP [(2018) 14 SCC 233], it has been contended that
essential element for having any dishonest or fraudulent intention
of petitioner since inception while giving certificate dated
24.07.2015, is wholly absent in the present FIR;
4.5 It has been contended that even if facts narrated in the FIR
and as per the material placed on record with charge-sheet are
taken as it is, the petitioner at the most could have been booked
for offences under Section 193 and 466 IPC, which are non-
cognizable offences and as such no FIR for investigation of such
nature of offences could have been registered by the Police;
(Downloaded on 02/02/2024 at 09:13:16 PM)
[2024:RJ-JP:2100] (9 of 25) [CRLMP-6706/2015]
4.6 In addition, it has also been urged by the counsel for
petitioner that investigation carried out on the impugned FIR,
culminated into filing of the charge-sheet which too is without
jurisdiction. Thereafter, criminal case No.323/2016, arising from
impugned FIR No.253/2015, came to be registered and wherein
charges for offences under Sections 420, 466, 467, 468, 471, 193
and 218 of IPC were framed against petitioner, by the trial Court,
without adverting to such glaring illegalities/ abuse of process of
law.
Hence, entire criminal proceedings pursuant to the impugned
FIR including the order of framing charges, as a whole are against
the process of law and therefore, to meet ends of justice, the High
Court is required to prevent such abuse of process of law in
exercise of its inherent powers under Section 482. Reliance has
also been placed on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
case of Anand Kumar Mohatta Vs. State of NCT of Delhi
[(2019) 11 SCC 706].
Finally, it has been prayed that the impugned FIR along with
all consequential criminal proceedings of criminal case
No.323/2016 arising therefrom may be quashed and set aside.
5. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor opposed the prayer of
petitioner and submits that the impugned FIR was registered in
the backdrop of facts where the High Court itself, prima facie,
observed that the petitioner is, prima facie, guilty for giving false
information in judicial proceedings by issuing certificate dated
24.07.2015 on the letter head of Gram Panchayat, being
Sarpanch. The FIR was registered as per directions of the High
(Downloaded on 02/02/2024 at 09:13:16 PM)
[2024:RJ-JP:2100] (10 of 25) [CRLMP-6706/2015]
Court, whereupon after investigation charge-sheet against
petitioner for offences under Section 420, 466, 467, 468, 471, 193
and 218 IPC has been filed. There is no, prima facie, case in
favour of petitioner to quash the impugned FIR so also criminal
proceedings arising therefrom. He submits that it is settled
proposition of law that the inherent powers of the High Court are
required to be exercised sparingly and only in exceptional cases.
He prayed to reject both petitions.
6. Heard counsel for both parties at length, perused the
material placed on record before this Court and gone through
judgments referred by the counsel for petitioner.
7. From perusal of record, it appears that whole case of prosecution against petitioner hinges upon the certificate dated 24.07.2015, issued by the petitioner on the letter head of the Gram Panchayat Bajna, Panchayat Samiti Bayana, District Bharatpur in the capacity being Sarpanch of that Gram Panchayat. It would be apposite to re-produce that certificate dated 24.07.2015, available on record (Ann-2) as it is:
कारायालर गाम पम पंंचारत बाजजना पम पंंचारत समममत, बराजना (भरत पुर) राज० प्रेषक:- सर पम पंंच प्रेमषत:श:श्रीमाजन..........................................
गाम पम पंंचारत बाजजना .........................................................
प० स० (भरत पुर) ......... क्रमाम पंक दिजनाम पंक : 24/7/15
मै पमामाणित करता हु कु की गी गौररख:श्री जना गर s/o स्० रािराम जना गर जात:श्री रखट:श्रीक, उम्र 47 ्षया मजन्ास:श्री गाम पं् ककोडा पुरा थाजना गाड़:श्री बाजजना तह० बराजना मजला भरत पुर का ममूल मजन्ास:श्री रा जको आज स्रे 10 ्षया पहल्रे, गाम पं् मजन० भ ग्त:श्री कॉलकोजन:श्री PS बराजना मजला भरत पुर में मकाजन बजना ररखा है । ्ह:श्री पर परिवर्ार समहत रहता है । गाम पं् में उसकु की ककोई पैतकक सम पं पमति जनहहीं है। पुराजना रखम पंडर घर पड़ा हुआ है । ककोई ंचल अंचल सम पं पमति जनहहीं है । इजनकु की पत:श्री ् ब बच्रे भ ग्त:श्री कॉलकोजन:श्री में रहत्रे है । गी गौररख:श्री जन गर क्रे एक ह:श्री पत:श्री है मजसका जनाम रामा ि्रे्:श्री है। इजनक्रे िको लड़कु की (Downloaded on 02/02/2024 at 09:13:16 PM) [2024:RJ-JP:2100] (11 of 25) [CRLMP-6706/2015] ् िको लड़क्रे है । िकोजनों लड़दकरों कु की शाि:श्री हको ंचुकु की है। ए्म पं िकोजनों लड़कु की रामा ि्रे्:श्री क्रे साथ भ ग्त:श्री कॉलकोजन:श्री बराजना में साफ़ रहत्रे है।
8. According to the petitioner the certificate dated 24.07.2015 finds corroboration of facts in respect of age, marital status and number of children of Mr. Gaurakhi Nagar from the document of his family ration card, which is also an undisputed document.
Nevertheless, the Hon'ble High Court made observations in the order dated 04.08.2015 to the effect that the petitioner, is prima facie, guilty for producing a false certificate dated 24.07.2015 in judicial proceedings, therefore, the Investigating Officer was directed to register a case against the petitioner- Sarpanch. According to the petitioner, taking directions of the Hon'ble High Court as it is, at the most, the petitioner could have been prosecuted for offence under Sections 193 and 466 IPC, but no prima facie, case is made out against the petitioner for offence under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 218 IPC.As far as offence under Sections 193 and 466 IPC are concerned, both offences are non-cognizable and as such FIR to prosecute the petitioner for offence could not have been registered and such offences are not liable to be investigated by the Police Officer. However, the impugned FIR was registered with inclusion of other cognizable nature of offences under Section 420, 467, 468, 471 and 218 IPC, which as a matter of fact do not arise at all.
9. This Court pondered over such aspect of the matter, factually as well as legally. It is, prima facie, explicit clear that the Investigating Officer was directed by the High Court vide order dated 04.08.2015 to register a case against the petitioner for (Downloaded on 02/02/2024 at 09:13:16 PM) [2024:RJ-JP:2100] (12 of 25) [CRLMP-6706/2015] producing the false document, which is in the present case, a certificate dated 24.07.2015 issued by the petitioner in her capacity as Sarpanch of Village Bajna on the letter head of Gram Panchayat Bajna. Section 191 IPC talks about offence for giving false evidence. Section 192 IPC talks about fabricating false evidence. Punishment for false evidence is provided under Section 193 IPC which says "Whosoever intentionally gives false evidence in any stage of judicial proceedings or fabricates false evidence for the purpose of being used in any such of judicial proceeding, shall be punished with imprisonment of either of description for a terms which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine; and whosoever intentionally gives or fabricates false evidence in any other case, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a terms which may extend to three years, and shall also be liable to fine." Offence of giving or fabricating false evidence in judicial proceedings is non-cognizable. If for the sake of arguments, it is taken that the petitioner holding a post of Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat, Bajna, issued or prepared a false certificate in his official capacity and is liable to face prosecution for offence under Section 466 IPC, the offence under Section 466 IPC too is non-cognizable. It is well settled proposition of law as expounded by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Bhajan Lal (supra) that where, allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a Police Officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Therefore, it can safely be held that as far (Downloaded on 02/02/2024 at 09:13:16 PM) [2024:RJ-JP:2100] (13 of 25) [CRLMP-6706/2015] as registration of impugned FIR for offence under Section 193 and 466 IPC is concerned, same is impermissible in law since both offences are non-cognizable and without an order of judicial Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of Cr.P.C., a Police Officer cannot proceed for investigation for such offence.
10. In case of M.S. Ahlawat (supra) direct conviction of petitioner by the Supreme Court under Section 193 IPC for making a false statement at different stages in the Court was recalled and set aside on the ground that the Supreme Court could not itself inflict the punishment under Section 193 IPC. It ought to have, instead followed procedure under Section 195 and 340 Cr.P.C. In this judgment, the Supreme Court clearly held in para 5 and 6 which are being reproduced herein for ready reference:-
"5. Chapter XI IPC deals with "false evidence and offences against public justice" and Section 193 occurring therein provides for punishment for giving or fabricating false evidence in a judicial proceeding. Section 195 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) provides that where an act amounts to an offence of contempt of the lawful authority of public servants or to an offence against public justice such as giving false evidence under Section 193 IPC etc. or to an offence relating to documents actually used in a court, private prosecutions are barred absolutely and only the court in relation to which the offence was committed may initiate proceedings. Provisions of Section 195 CrPC are mandatory and no court has jurisdiction to take cognizance of any of the offences mentioned therein unless there is a complaint in writing as required under that section. It is settled law that every incorrect or false statement does not make it incumbent upon the court to order prosecution, but (sic) to exercise judicial discretion to order prosecution only in the larger interest of the administration of justice.
6. Section 340 CrPC prescribes the procedure as to how a complaint may be preferred under Section 195 CrPC. While under Section 195 CrPC it is open to the court before which the offence was committed to prefer a complaint for the prosecution of the offender, Section 340 CrPC prescribes the procedure as to how that complaint may be preferred.
Provisions under Section 195 CrPC are mandatory and no court can take cognizance of offences referred to therein (Downloaded on 02/02/2024 at 09:13:16 PM) [2024:RJ-JP:2100] (14 of 25) [CRLMP-6706/2015] (sic). It is in respect of such offences the court has jurisdiction to proceed under Section 340 CrPC and a complaint outside the provisions of Section 340 CrPC cannot be filed by any civil, revenue or criminal court under its inherent jurisdiction."
11. Undisputedly, for the alleged offence of preparing and producing a false certificate dated 24.07.2015 in the judicial proceedings by the petitioner, no criminal complaint as envisaged under Section 340 Cr.P.C. was filed by the Investigating Officer against the petitioner. Without initiating the criminal proceedings by way of filing a criminal complaint, and without issuance of directions by the judicial Magistrate to initiate investigation under Section 155(2) Cr.P.C., neither the FIR impugned could have been registered for offence under Section 193 and 466 IPC nor a police officer could have proceed for investigation of such offences, nor the Court has jurisdiction to take cognizance of such offence on the basis of investigation report by the police, which is treated as without jurisdiction. Thus, as far as registration of the impugned FIR and initiating criminal proceedings against the petitioner through the impugned FIR, to prosecute her for offence under Section 193 and 466 IPC, are arbitrary, ex facie illegal and without jurisdiction as much as can be held to be in clear abuse of process of law. Therefore, following the ratio decidendi and criteria No.IV, prescribed by the Supreme Court in para 102 of the judgment of Bhajan Lal (supra) so also in the light of judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of M.S. Ahlawat (supra), registration of impugned FIR and initiation of criminal proceedings against the petitioner for offences under Section 193 and 466 IPC, may be declared as against the mandate of law, as such may be quashed (Downloaded on 02/02/2024 at 09:13:16 PM) [2024:RJ-JP:2100] (15 of 25) [CRLMP-6706/2015] and set aside by the High Court in exercise of inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
12. Coming to registering the impugned FIR and prosecuting the petitioner for offence under Section 420, 467, 468, 471 and 218 IPC is concerned, it has to be seen that whether the allegations of impugned FIR, on their face value and accepting such allegations levelled therein in their entirety, do prima facie, constitute an offence of cheating under Section 420 IPC, forging the valuable security for the purpose of cheating by preparing certificate dated 24.07.2015 to constitute an offence under Section 467 and 468 IPC, using fraudulently or dishonestly the certificate knowing or having a reason to believe the same to be forged to constitute an offence under Section 471 IPC and framing incorrect record being public servant that intend to save any person from punishment or his property from forfeiture, to constitute offence under Section 218 IPC. Basic and fundamental element to constitute offence of cheating and other offences are:
(i) There must be deception i.e. the accused must have deceived someone;
(ii) The accused must induce a person, fraudulently or dishonestly, to deliver any property or to make, alter or destroy the valuable security/ valuable property;
(iii) The accused must commit forgery; and such forgery must be in relation to the document which purported to be valuable security or Will or any property;
(iv) The forgery committed by the accused shall be with intention to use such documents for the purpose of cheating;(Downloaded on 02/02/2024 at 09:13:16 PM)
[2024:RJ-JP:2100] (16 of 25) [CRLMP-6706/2015]
(v) The accused must have used the forged document, knowing it to be forged but to use of that document as genuine, fraudulently or dishonestly and for offences under Section 218 IPC, the offender must be a public servant, charged with a duty to prepare a record and he must have prepared that record incorrectly and he must have done so with intent to cause loss or injury to public or any person or to save any person from legal punishment;
There is nothing on record either from the allegation of FIR or from the investigation report (charge-sheet) filed against the petitioner to show that petitioner issue a certificate dated 24.07.2015 with intention to deceive any person or having any fraudulent or dishonest intention to induce any person to deliver any property or to raise any other benefit for herself or to extend benefit to Mr. Gaurakhi Nagar in any manner. Taking the case of prosecution as it is, giving incorrect figures of age and number of children of Mr.Gaurakhi Nagar have no nexus with the nature of offence against him. So there is no question of giving the certificate by the petitioner having any dishonest intention of cheating or extending any favour to Mr.Gaurakhi Nagar. The issue of certificate, in giving facts, may not be taken as forging a valuable security for the purpose of cheating, nor this certificate was used by the petitioner for any of her own interest or benefit. This essential ingredient to constitute offence under Section 420, 467, 468, 471 and 218 IPC are wholly absent and no such offences are, prima facie, make out against the petitioner to prosecute him.
(Downloaded on 02/02/2024 at 09:13:16 PM) [2024:RJ-JP:2100] (17 of 25) [CRLMP-6706/2015]
13. From the facts referred hereinabove, Mr. Gaurakhi Nagar was accused against whom, in the FIR, lodged by one Ms. Nidhi Sahu, charge-sheet for offence under Section 420m 384, 376 IPC was filed. There is nothing on record that petitioner had any nexus or concerned with the accused Mr. Gaurakhi Nagar. The certificate dated 24.07.2015 was issued by the petitioner to answer the query made by the head constable to enquire about the age, marital status and number of children of Mr. Gaurakhi Nagar. Such information was divulged by the petitioner, according to her on the basis of details indicated in the family ration card of Mr. Gaurakhi Nagar. Otherwise also, this Court does not find any good reason that on the basis of information indicated by petitioner in the certificate dated 24.07.2015 showing incorrect age, marital status and wrong number of children of accused Mr.Gaurakhi Nagar, neither he could have taken any advantage of such false information in the criminal case against him, nor any extraneous benefit was extended to him. It is only for the reason that details furnished by the petitioner in certificate dated 24.07.2015 were mismatched with other documents of Mr.Gaurakhi Nagar like his voter list, Bank statements etc. Hence, the High Court, prima facie, observed that petitioner has produced a false certificate in the judicial proceedings, therefore, a case was ordered to be registered against the petitioner.
14. There is no iota of evidence on record that petitioner issued the certificate dated 24.07.2015 fraudulently or dishonestly in order to deceive any person or induce any person to deliver any property or to gain any benefit. The factual background wherein (Downloaded on 02/02/2024 at 09:13:16 PM) [2024:RJ-JP:2100] (18 of 25) [CRLMP-6706/2015] the certificate was issued by the petitioner, cannot be treated within the purview of forging a valuable security or using this certificate fraudulently or dishonestly for the purpose of cheating or for her own benefit or for benefit of Mr.Gaurakhi Nagar. There is nothing on record to assume that petitioner had any intention to issue such certificate knowing it containing incorrect information and having an intent to save the accused Mr. Gaurakhi Nagar. Therefore, essential ingredients, even, prima facie, to register a criminal case against the petitioner for offence under Section 420, 467, 468, 471 and 218 IPC do not make out.
15. The High Court in the order dated 04.08.2015, only issued direction to the Investigating Officer to register the case against the petitioner for producing a false document nothing more than that, therefore, this Court finds that registration of FIR by the Investigating Officer against the petitioner for offence under Section 420, 467, 468, 471 and 218 IPC is wholly arbitrary, unwarranted and without jurisdiction. On admitted facts of the present case, any of the essential ingredients to constitute such nature of offence against the petitioner is not available on record. In whole of the charge-sheet, no evidence or other material has been pointed out which came on record to book the petitioner for such offences. The order of framing charges by the judicial Magistrate too do not whisper any prima facie satisfaction about availability of any evidence or other material on record to frame charges for such offence.
(Downloaded on 02/02/2024 at 09:13:16 PM) [2024:RJ-JP:2100] (19 of 25) [CRLMP-6706/2015] The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in case of Century Spinning and Manufacturing Company Ltd. Vs. State of Maharashtra [AIR 1972 SC 545], has held that "it cannot be said that the Court at the stage of framing the charges has not to apply its judicial mind for considering whether or not there is a ground for presuming the commission of offence by the accused. The order framing the charges does substantially affect the person's liberty and it cannot be said that the Court must automatically frame the charge merely because the prosecuting authorities by relying on documents referred in Section 173, consider it proper to institute the case. The responsibility of framing charges is that of the Court and it has to judicially consider the question of doing so. Without fully adverting to the material on record, it must not blindly adopt the decision of the prosecution." Similarly, in case of P.Vijayan Vs. State of Kerala [AIR 2010 SC 663], it was held that the Judge is not a mere post office to frame the charge, but has to exercise his judicial mind to the facts of the case in order to determine whether a case for trial has been made out by the prosecution or not? Though, this Court is aware that the legal decision in respect framing charges is well settled that Court is not required to write a reason or lengthy order for framing the charge and detailed analysis or evolution of the material on record is not suppose to, however, by applying the parameters of law, warranting a, prima facie, satisfaction by the Court about the availability of material on record to frame the charges, the impugned order of framing charges by the trial Court in the (Downloaded on 02/02/2024 at 09:13:16 PM) [2024:RJ-JP:2100] (20 of 25) [CRLMP-6706/2015] present case does not meet such parameters, as such leads to miscarriage of justice.
This Court finds that in the FIR, offences under Section 420, 468, 471 and 218 IPC have been added just to add cognizable nature of offence with the offences under Section 193, 466 IPC which are non-cognizable in nature, in order to register the FIR and proceed for investigation just to show for making the compliance of directions of the High Court issued in the order dated 04.08.2015. It may be noted that in pursuance to directions of the High Court issued vide order dated 04.08.2015, the Investigating Officer should have proceeded to register a criminal complaint against the petitioner before the concerned Judicial Magistrate after following procedure prescribed under Section 340 Cr.P.C., but the investigating officer adopted a wrong track to register the FIR impugned for offences under Sections 193, 466 IPC, after including other offences of cognizable nature under Sections 420, 468, 471 and 218 IPC, which at all do not attract in the present case.
16. In case of Bhajan Lal (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court categorically prescribed a criteria No.III in para 102 that "where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint, the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused", the High Court could exercise inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash such FIR or criminal proceedings to prevent the abuse of process of any Court or to secure the ends of (Downloaded on 02/02/2024 at 09:13:16 PM) [2024:RJ-JP:2100] (21 of 25) [CRLMP-6706/2015] justice. In the present case, from the FIR or from the charge- sheet, the essential ingredients to constitute, prima facie, offence against the petitioner under Section 420, 467, 468, 471 and 218 IPC do not make out. If petitioner could have been booked, then only for offence under Section 193 and 466 IPC that too through the procedure of filing a criminal complaint before the Judicial Magistrate and not by way of registering an FIR since both offences are non-cognizable. Therefore, the present case falls within the criteria No.I, II, III and IV as prescribed by the Supreme Court; in case of Bhajan Lal (supra), hence, this Court deems it just and proper to exercise its inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the impugned FIR.
17. It is noteworthy that in the SB Criminal Misc. Petition No.6706/2015 filed by the petitioner seeking to quash the impugned FIR No.253/2015, the High Court taking note of the legal embargo that the impugned FIR is hit by provisions contained in Section 195 and 340 Cr.P.C., staying the further investigation in the FIR vide order dated 05.02.2018, however, by that time, the police had completed the investigation in the impugned FIR and submitted the charge-sheet, whereupon the criminal case No.323/2016 titled State Vs. Mamta Gurjar came to be registered before the Court of Additional Civil Judge and Metropolitan Magistrate, Jaipur Metropolitan-I and the Judicial Magistrate proceed to frame the charges against petitioner merely on the basis of filing the charge-sheet for offence under Section 420, 466, 467, 468, 471, 193 and 218 IPC, hence, petitioner filed a criminal writ petition No.79/2018 seeking to quash the (Downloaded on 02/02/2024 at 09:13:16 PM) [2024:RJ-JP:2100] (22 of 25) [CRLMP-6706/2015] proceedings of criminal case No.323/2016 including the order of framing charges being in abuse of process of law. The legal proposition in this regard has been settled by the Supreme Court in case of Joseph Saivarage A Vs. State of Gujarat [(2011) 7 SCC 59] wherein while answering the question "whether the High Court could entertain the petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of FIR, when the charge-sheet was filed by the police during pendency of the Section 482 petition, the Supreme Court in para 16 observed as under:-
"16. Thus, from the general conspectus of the various sections under which the appellant is being charged and is to be prosecuted would show that the same are not made out even prima facie from the complainant's FIR. Even if the charge-sheet had been filed, the learned Single Judge could have still examined whether the offences alleged to have been committed by the appellant were prima facie made out from the complainant's FIR, charge-sheet, documents, etc. or not."
18. Following and reiterating the proposition expounded by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Joseph Saivarage A (supra), in case of Anand Kumar Mohatta (supra), the Supreme Court held in para No.15 and 16 as under:-
"15. Even otherwise it must be remembered that the provision invoked by the accused before the High Court is Section 482 CrPC and that this Court is hearing an appeal from an order under Section 482 CrPC. Section 482 CrPC reads as follows:
"482. Saving of inherent powers of the High Court.-Nothing in this Code shall be deemed to limit or affect the inherent powers of the High Court to make such orders as may be necessary to give effect to any order under this Code, or to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice."
16. There is nothing in the words of this section which restricts the exercise of the power of the Court to prevent the (Downloaded on 02/02/2024 at 09:13:16 PM) [2024:RJ-JP:2100] (23 of 25) [CRLMP-6706/2015] abuse of process of court or miscarriage of justice only to the stage of the FIR. It is settled principle of law that the High Court can exercise jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC even when the discharge application is pending with the trial court. Indeed, it would be a travesty to hold that proceedings initiated against a person can be interfered with at the stage of FIR but not if it has advanced and the allegations have materialised into a charge-sheet. On the contrary it could be said that the abuse of process caused by FIR stands aggravated if the FIR has taken the form of a charge-sheet after investigation. The power is undoubtedly conferred to prevent abuse of process of power of any court."
19. Having discussed the background of entire factual matrix wherein the impugned FIR came be to registered against the petitioner and have enlightened with the proposition of law discussed hereinabove, this Court comes to the conclusion that the High Court vide order dated 04.08.2015 passed in SB Criminal Writ Petition No.5550/2015 issued directions to the Investigating Officer to register a case against the petitioner for producing a false document of certificate dated 24.07.2015 which was prima facie observed by the High Court containing some incorrect and false information about the accused Mr.Gaurakhi Nagar in respect of his age and number of children he had. In the certificate issued by the petitioner, age of Mr.Gaurakhi Nagar was indicated as 41 years whereas he was found to be age of 68 years and as far as number of his children is concerned in the certificate it was indicated that he had four children from his wife Smt. Rama Devi whereas he was found to have eight children, therefore, at the most, for giving such nature of incorrect and false information in the judicial proceedings, petitioner could have been prosecuted for offences under Section 193 IPC and at the most under Section 466 IPC not more than that. Since both such offences are non- (Downloaded on 02/02/2024 at 09:13:16 PM) [2024:RJ-JP:2100] (24 of 25) [CRLMP-6706/2015] cognizable, the FIR could not have been registered and same is hit by the provisions of Section 195 and 340 Cr.P.C. which are mandatory in nature. The Investigating Officer could have register a criminal complaint to prosecute the petitioner for such offences before the Judicial Magistrate, after following the mandate of Section 340 Cr.P.C. but he lodged the impugned FIR for such offence by adding other cognizable nature of offences under Sections 420, 468, 471 and 218 IPC which do not attract at all in the present case, even as per the allegations against the petitioner, for want of essential ingredients to constitute such offences.
20. Therefore, having considered the matter from all angles, this Court finds that the registration of impugned FIR against the petitioner is in clear abuse of process of law. The FIR has taken the form of charge-sheet after investigation, which too is without jurisdiction and against the mandate of law, therefore, the prosecution of petitioner for the alleged offences, launched through registration of impugned FIR would be in clear abuse of process of law. To prevent abuse of process of law, this Court deems it just and proper to exercise its inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. If petitioner is allowed to go through rigmarol of a criminal prosecution for long number of years, even when no prima facie case on the face value of impugned FIR is make out against her, same would only lead to her harassment and humiliation which cannot be permitted in accordance with principles of law. In such exceptional facts and circumstances, this court finds the present case to be a fit case to quash the (Downloaded on 02/02/2024 at 09:13:16 PM) [2024:RJ-JP:2100] (25 of 25) [CRLMP-6706/2015] impugned FIR and all criminal proceedings emanating therefrom in exercise of its inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
21. As a final result, the FIR No.253/2015 registered at Police Station Ashok Nagar, Jaipur and criminal proceedings of criminal case No.323/2016 (State Vs. Mamta Gurjar) pending before the Court of Additional Civil Judge and Metropolitan Magistrate No.11, Jaipur Metropolitan-I, stand quashed. No costs.
22. A copy of this order be sent to the trial Court to close proceedings of present criminal case.
(SUDESH BANSAL),J NITIN/301-302 (Downloaded on 02/02/2024 at 09:13:16 PM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)