Madhya Pradesh High Court
Rakesh Kumar Tiwari vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh Thr on 22 August, 2022
Author: Anand Pathak
Bench: Anand Pathak
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANAND PATHAK
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 5110 of 2017
Between:-
RAKESH TIWARI S/O SHRI SALIGRAM
TIWARI, AGED-54 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
NOKRI, R/O SHIVAJI NAGAR, BHIND
(MADHYA PRADESH)
.....APPLICANT
(BY SHRI S.K.SONI - ADVOCATE)
AND
1. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
THROUGH POLICE STATION DEHAT,
BHIND (MADHYA PRADESH)
2. JAIRAJ SINGH S/O SHRI KU.
BAHADUR SINGH CHAUHAN R/O
VILLAGE GHADI , POLICE STATION
MEHGAON DISTRICT BHIND
(MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI PRAMOD PACHORI - PUBLIC PROSECUTOR)
(BY SHRI VIRENDRA SINGH - ADVOCATE FOR COMPLAINANT)
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 14186 of 2016
Between:-
BHIM SHANKAR SHARMA S/O SHRI
RAM LAKHAN SHASTRI, R/O ARYA
NAGAR, LASHKAR ROAD, BHIND
2
(MADHYA PRADESH)
.....APPLICANT
(BY SHRI B.S.GOUR - ADVOCATE)
AND
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
1. THROUGH POLICE STATION DEHAT,
BHIND (MADHYA PRADESH)
JAIRAJ SINGH S/O SHRI KU. BAHUDER
SINGH CHAUHAN R/O VILLAGE
2.
GHADI , POLICE STATION, MEHGAON
DISTRICT BHIND (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI PRAMOD PACHORI - PUBLIC PROSECUTOR)
(BY SHRI VIRENDRA SINGH - ADVOCATE FOR COMPLAINANT)
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 10419 of 2016
Between:-
SMT. ARCHANA SHARMA W/O SHRI
SUNIL TRIPATHI, AGED-35 YEARS,
OCCUPATION: NOTHING EX HEAD
MASTER IN A PRIVATE SCHOOL, R/O
DURGA NAGAR, BEHIND COURT,
BHIND (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....APPLICANT
(BY SHRI RAJNISH SHARMA - ADVOCATE)
AND
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
1. THROUGH POLICE STATION DEHAT,
BHIND (MADHYA PRADESH)
2. JAIRAJ SINGH S/O SHRI KU. BAHUDER
SINGH CHAUHAN, R/O VILLAGE GHDI,
POLICE STATION MEHGAON, BHIND
3
(MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI PRAMOD PACHORI - PUBLIC PROSECUTOR)
(BY SHRI DHEERENDRA SINGH NIRANJAN - ADVOCATE FOR
COMPLAINANT)
CRIMINAL REVISION No. 322 of 2022
Between:-
RAKESH TIWARI S/O SALIGRAM
TIWARI, AGED-54 YEARS, R/O WARD
NO.9 SHIVAJI NAGAR BHIND (MADHYA
PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI HEMANT SINGH RANA - ADVOCATE)
AND
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
1. THROUGH POLICE STATION DEHAT
BHIND (MADHYA PRADESH)
JAIRAJ SINGH S/O SHRI KUNWAR
BAHADUR GHADHI POLICE STATION
2.
MEHGAON DISTRICT BHIND (MADHYA
PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI PRAMOD PACHORI - PUBLIC PROSECUTOR)
(BY SHRI VIRENDRA SINGH - ADVOCATE FOR COMPLAINANT)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ORDER RESERVED ON : 18.08.2022 ORDER PASSED ON : 22.08.2022
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Because of commonality of subject matter as all cases raised out of same crime number and same set of offence, this Court heard 4 the cases analogously and decided by a common order. For convenience sake facts of MCRC.No.5110/2017 are taken into consideration.
2. Facts in brief of the cases MCRC.No.5110/2017, MCRC.No.14186/2016 and MCRC.No.10419/2016 are that, the instant petitions are preferred under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. at the instant of accused persons taking quashment of FIR and consequential proceeding arises out of case registered vide crime No.471/2016 at Police Station Bhind Dehat District Bhind for alleged offence under Section 420, 466, 467, 468, 471, 474, 196, 197, 199 and 120-B of IPC.
3. As per the allegations of complainant - Jairaj Singh who made a complaint that all these accused persons alongwith some other accused have forged and fabricated the birth certificate of one Lucky @ Rudransh by which his age which was earlier figured in academic records as on 29.10.1997 but forged it to 29.10.1998 and thereby given him benefit so that he can be treated as juvenile in another case in which he was an accused for offence under Section 302, 307, 294, 5 341 and 34 of IPC vide Crime No.625/2015 at Police Station Kotwali Bhind District Bhind and represented him as juvenile and by such fabrication of documents that accused Lucky @ Rudransh got bail being juvenile.
4. On complaint so made, preliminary inquiry was carried out by Inquiry Officer (ASI, Police Station Dehat, District Bhind) and found the role of all petitioners prima facie implicative for registration of offence and further investigation.
5. After investigation charge-sheet was filed against all accused persons. Now petitioners/accused have preferred this petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. taking exception to the registration of FIR and consequential proceedings on grounds mentioned herein below after facts narrated in Cr.R.No.322/2022.
6. Facts of Criminal Revision No.322/2022, as per the submission, accused - Rakesh Tiwari was Headmaster at Government Middle School, Pithanpura in the year 2000 and he did not cause any interpolation in the admission register or record of accused Rudransh Sharma. In fact it was done by earlier Headmaster -Pathiram Jatav and 6 to save him from implication, present applicant has been falsely implicated. He never prepared new admission register and never made any false statement before the Court when juvenility of accused Rudransh Sharma was decided. He moved an application for discharge under Section 227 of Cr.P.C. but same was rejected therefore, revision under Section 397 and 401 of Cr.P.C. has been preferred.
7. The main ground raised by the counsel for all the petitioners is that their respective role and alleged futility in prosecuting them. As submitted, accused-Rakesh Tiwari was Headmaster of Primary School at Village Pithanpur and he maintained the admission register in which date of birth was written as 29.10.1998. He had no role to play as such in causing any forgery or fabrication. No iota of evidence exist against the petitioner to bring home the fact that he caused any interpolation in date of birth of accused-Lucky @ Rudransh. Medical Board conducted the medical examination of accused-Lucky @ Rudransh and found him juvenile therefore, allegation against the petitioner -Rakesh Tiwari is misplaced.
7
8. Accused Archana Sharma in (MCRC.No.10419/2016) also raised the point that at the relevant point of time she was Principal of Great India Central School, Bhind and gave the admission to accused
-Rudransh Sharma in the year 2006 in Class- 5 th. At the time of admission, his mother came to the school and submitted the admission form over which date of birth was mentioned as 29.10.1998 and his mother also submitted mark-sheet of Class-4 th and Transfer Certificate and based on the prevision school record, petitioner gave the admission and recorded his name in the admission registered at Serial No.82 She has not committed any illegality and fabrication of documents.
9. Both the accused Rakesh Tiwari and Archana Sharma were called by the CJM Court for deposition which conducted the enquiry about juvenility of accused Lucky @ Rudransh Sharma and both made deposition as per their knowledge and record available. No illegality or perversity has been caused by them to attract the wrath of implication for offence referred above.
10. Accused -Bhim Shankar Sharma (MCRC.No.14186/2016) 8 also took exception to the registration of offence on the ground that no false documentation has been made and it was based upon his original date of birth. Since competent Court declared the Rudransh Sharma who happens to be son of applicant-Bheem Shankar Sharma as minor on the basis of ossification report conducted as per the order of the Court therefore, no evidence of fabrication of documents exist against the applicant.
Collectively, arguments advanced by petitioner are two fold. I) That, FIR is registered for committing the offence under Sections 420, 466, 467, 468, 471, 474, 196, 197, 199 and 120-B of IPC and since offences are under Sections 196, 197, 199 of IPC also therefore, as per the provisions as provided under Section 195 (1)(b)(ii) of Cr.P.C. it bars the Court from taking cognizance of any offence punishable under Section 193 of the IPC and other offences indicated thereon, unless there is a written complaint made by the concerned Court. Since here no private complaint has been filed and matter is proceeded on police report therefore, it is vitiated. He Relied upon Kailash Mangal Vs. Ramesh Mangal (dead) through LR reported in (2015) 15 SCC 729 and C. Muniappan & Ors vs State Of 9 Tamil Nadu reported in (2010) 9 SCC 567. It is further submitted that petitioners are Government Servant therefore, they are protected under Section 197 of Cr.P.C. and without permission from the employer cognizance could not have been taken.
ii) Another argument of learned counsel for the petitioner was that the nature of allegations do not invoke any cognizable offence because on such allegations, ingredients of Section 420, 466, 467, 468, 471 and 474 of IPC are not made out. While relying upon the case of Inder Mohan Goswami & Another vs State Of Uttaranchal & Others reported in (2007) 12 SCC 1 and State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal reported in 1992 1 (Suple) SCC 335 . Learned counsel for the petitioner prayed for quashment of FIR and consequential proceeding.
11. Learned counsel for the respondent/State opposed the prayer and submitted that preliminary inquiry was conducted in which their respective role found to be implicative and therefore, they have to face trial. While relying upon different contents of FIR and charge- sheet, he supported the proceedings and prayed for dismissal of petition.
12. Learned counsel for the complainant submits that his nephew 10
-Abhishek Singh Chauhan was murdered on 01.12.2015 by accused persons including Lucky @ Rudransh Sharma and therefore, to wriggle him out of the clutches of implication, his father Bheem Shankar Sharma and other forged the documents in which he was demonstrated as juvenile. Thereafter, they moved an application before concerned Court to treat him juvenile and ultimately succeeded in getting bail. All accused persons were instrumental in fabrication and interpolation of documents, therefore, their respective role can be verified through trial. He prayed for dismissal of petition.
13. Heard the counsel for the parties and perused the documents appended and produced by them.
14. This is the case where all accused are facing implication for offence referred above. Main allegations against all accused person is that they forged or interpolated the documents in such manner whereby the date of birth of accused in other case vide Crime No.625/2015 got the benefit of juvenility and was granted bail. Consequently, he would get benefit as juvenile in trial also and would go scot free vis a vis regular trial.
11
15. Perusal of preliminary inquiry report dated 22.08.2016 submitted by Inquiry Officer who happens to be Assistant Sub- Inspector of Police of Police Station Dehat, Bhind reveals that nephew of complainant namely Abhishek Singh Chauhan was murdered on 01.12.2015 in which role of Lucky @ Rudransh Sharma (son of one of the accused -Bheem Shankar Sharma) was involved. At the relevant point of time in record of Municipality date of birth of Lucky was written as 29.10.1997 but from the inquiry report it appears that on 18.05.2016, Tehsildar, Bhind passed an order in which his date of birth was incorporated as 29.10.1998 and said incorporation or amendment was made on application filed by brother of Rudransh namely Vikram Sharma. Therefore, prima facie it appears that after the offence allegedly committed by Rudransh on 01.12.2015, just to save him from implication, his date of birth was changed from 29.10.1997 to 29.10.1998.
16. Thereafter, role of different accused came into picture because although Tehsildar passed the order dated 18.05.2016 but to get it foolproof from all corners, concerned school records were 12 manipulated and here the role of accused Archana Sharma, Rakesh Sharma and Rakesh Tiwari came into picture. All three apparently used their position to change the school record of said accused- Lucky @ Rudransh.
17. Petitioner/accused Archana Sharma at the relevant point of time was the Principal of Great India Central School, Bhind and as per allegation, original date of birth in mark-sheet of Class-5 th was depicted as 29.10.1997 which was amended by petitioner to 29.10.1998 and sent the said mark-sheet to Block Education Officer- Rajendra Kumar Tiwari for attestation. The said BEO-Rajendra Kumar Tiwari is also accused because he attested the alleged wrong date of birth to save the accused -Rudransh Sharma.
18. So far as petitioner/accused Rakesh Tiwari is concerned he was also Headmaster of Primary School, Village Pithanpur at relevant point of time and he was instrumental in destroying whole register and preparing fresh register of concerned class so that date of birth of accused-Lucky @ Rudrash Sharma can be represented as 29.10.1998 so that he can get the benefit of juvenility.
13
19. Petitioner/accused Bheem Shankar Sharma is father of accused
-Rudransh Sharma (of Crime No.625/2015 at Police Station Kotwali, Bhind) and he was the main perpetrator behind the scene because by creating false evidence his son was likely to be benefited immensely and therefore, prima facie he managed the whole show.
20. Counsel for the petitioner raised the ground of applicability of Section 195(1)(b)(ii) of Cr.P.C. but, here the matter involves, not only offence under Section 193, 196 and 197 of Cr.P.C. but also of Section 420, 466, 467, 468, 471 and 474 alongwith Section 120-B of IPC. Main allegations are in respect of forging and interpolation of documents. Therefore, once the ingredients of these offences are available therefore, police was in its authority to investigate and file the charge-sheet against the accused persons. Need of private complaint does not arise in the present set of facts.
21. Even otherwise, as per the guidance given by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of H.N.Rishbud Vs. State of Delhi reported in AIR 1955 SC 196, unless miscarriage of justice is caused, then on minor irregularity in registration of FIR or investigation cannot attract 14 quashment of proceedings. Therefore, on this count also, since no such irregularity exits therefore, argument is devoid of merit hence, rejected.
22. So far as submissions regarding protection umbrella of Section 197 Cr.P.C. is concerned, it also has no substantial ground to stand, because if some of the accused persons were working as Public Servant even then, they do not get protection umbrella because they have not performed their act in their official capacity. If they would have performed any act while performing their official duty then this aspect may have been available to them but in fact they did what they are prohibited to do so. Interpolation or fabrication of documents to save an accused cannot be termed as performance of official duty. This argument if accepted then would negate the whole concept of public duties. Therefore, on this count also, arguments advanced by the petitioner lack credence and credibility. [See: Dr. Subramanian Swamy vs Dr. Manmohan Singh And Anr. reported in (2012) 3 SCC 64) and Vineet Narain & Others vs Union Of India & Another reported in (1998) 1 SCC 226.] 15
23. In cumulative analysis, all accused are required to face trial because trial would un earth the truth by leading and appreciating the evidence led by the parties. At this juncture, on some minor or flimsy pretext, extraordinary remedy under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. cannot be invoked. Trial will bring the truth to the fore
24. Resultanlty, all three petitions and Cr.R-322/2022 being devoid of merit, hence, dismissed. Interim order if any earlier granted stands vacated and if charge-sheet against any accused has not been filed yet then be filed immediately and Investigating Officer and Trial Court may proceed in accordance with law.
25. Copy of this order be sent to Investigating Officer and Trial Court for further followup action.
Dismissed.
(Anand Pathak)
Ashish* Judge
ASHIS Digitally signed by ASHISH CHAURASIA
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF MADHYA
H
PRADESH BENCH GWALIOR, ou=HIGH
COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH BENCH
GWALIOR, postalCode=474001,
st=Madhya Pradesh,
2.5.4.20=bf81a9adb1da24e4bc7b51951
54c3d4de08c6bb9303e52e2e7e728d9b
CHAU
ac85bd3,
pseudonym=CA2EA6EDDF504F8F9C27
90FA9A0FD201D0242B64,
serialNumber=A926F3CBF979ECA6A4C
477577EEDBA3AB4F94593A930B98DAE
1B0AD16F90B5FD, cn=ASHISH
RASIA
CHAURASIA
Date: 2022.08.23 17:20:11 -07'00'