Madhya Pradesh High Court

Jaipal Singh vs State Of M.P. on 4 February, 2022

Author: Rajeev Kumar Shrivastava

                                   1

             The High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
                          Bench Gwalior
                       *****************

SB:- Hon'ble Shri Justice Rajeev Kumar Shrivastava

MCRC 2050 of 2010

Jajpal Singh Vs.

Sate of MP and Anr.

============================== Shri VK Bhardwaj, learned Senior Counsel with Shri SS Gautam, counsel for the petitioner.

Shri Ankur Mody, learned Additional Advocate General for the respondent No.1/ State.

Shri Sohit Mishra, counsel for the respondent No.2.

              ===============================
Reserved on                                   01/02/2022
Whether approved for reporting              ......../........
                 ==============================
                                  O R D ER
                            (Passed 04/02/2022)

Per Rajeev Kumar Shrivastava, J

Petitioner has preferred present petition u/S. 482 of CrPC for

quashment of FIR bearing Crime No.161/2010 registered at Police

Station City Kotwali, District Ashok Nagar for offence under

Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 477, 120-B IPC and other

consequential criminal proceedings initiated therefrom.

(2) Facts giving rise to present petition in short are that,

respondent No.2 lodged a report at police station concerned to the

effect that petitioner has obtained a caste certificate of ''Nat Bazigar''

(OBC) in 1999 and on the basis of said certificate, he won

Janpad/Zila Panchayat Election by showing himself to be a caste of

SC Category. On account of that, the aforesaid offences have been

registered against him.

(3) It is submitted by learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner

that initially, one Caste Certificate of Keer (SC) was issued in

favour of petitioner on 03/05/1999 vide Annexure A1 by SDM,

Amritsar (Punjab) whereby declaring the caste of petitioner as Keer

(OBC) by Tahsildar, Ashok Nagar (MP) on 02/12/1999 vide

Annexure A2. Aforesaid caste certificate of Keer (OBC) was

perfectly legal and proper as per the decision of of this Court in the

matter of Pahalwan Singh Vs. State of MP through the Secretary,

Ministry of Panchayat & Rural Development (WP 366 of 2000)

decided on 09/05/2002. Thereafter, a Caste Scrutiny Committee was

constituted and the MP State Level Caste Scrutiny Committee vide

its decision dated 11/11/2004 Annexure P4 cancelled the caste

certificate of Keer (OBC) holding that petitioner is Nat Bazigar

(SC) on the ground that neither the caste certificate was available on

record showing the petitioner himself to be Nat Bazigar (SC) nor

the said caste certificate was ever issued. Till decision of the MP

State High Level Caste Scrutiny Committee has attained finality, on

03/11/2008 vide Annexure A5, petitioner was compelled to obtain a

caste certificate of SC Category and contested election of

Municipality held in the month of December, 2009. It is further

submitted that a false and frivolous FIR has been lodged against the

petitioner by respondent No.1 on the complaint made by respondent

No.2. It is submitted that respondent No.2 harbours enmity with the

petitioner because respondent No.2 had lost Zila Panchayat election

held for the post of Member on 06/02/2010 vide Annexure A6 and

in that election process, petitioner did not support, hence, a

frivolous and false FIR has been lodged against the petitioner.

Petitioner is an innocent and has not committed any offence of fraud

or forgery/conspiracy. There is no illegality in the Reserved

Category Candidate applying for the open seats or for the General

Category Seats in the light of the judgment passed by this Court in

the matter of Mukesh Jain vs. State of MP, reported in (2001) JLJ

276. Therefore, allegations levelled against petitioner are baseless

and concocted. It is also submitted that there was no authority in

State of Madhya Pradesh up-to year 2004 for issuing caste

certificate to the candidates like the petitioner changing his name to

be a caste of Nat Bazigar (SC) and the same caste certificate was not

in existence. On the basis of such certificate, the petitioner had

never contested the election nor the certificate issued in his favour

was in existence. It is further submitted that caste ''Keer'' is

belonging to SC category in the State of Punjab, whereas caste

''Keer'' is belonging to OBC category in the State of Madhya

Pradesh, hence, both the certificates were rightly and legally issued

by the concerning authorities at the relevant time. Therefore, there is

no case made out against the petitioner for committing fraud or

forgery/conspiracy. The MP High Level Caste Scrutiny Committee

took a decision to cancel the caste certificate of Keer (OBC) issued

on 02/12/1999 in favaur of the candidates like petitioner by the

concerning authorities holding the petitioner to be Nat Bazigar

(SC) and the said decision has attained finality on 11/11/2004 vide

Annexure A4. In view of the decision of MP High Level Caste

Scrutiny Committee, the authorities of State of MP has issued a

caste certificate on 03/11/2008 vide Annexure A5 in favour of

petitioner, which is perfectly lawful and no offence is made out

against petitioner for committing forgery or fraud/conspiracy. It is

further submitted that political rival parties are creating all sorts of

hurdles and harassment to the petitioner by resorting to a false

objection in regard to difference of caste certificate of petitioner. In

this regard, election petitions Annexures A7 & A8 are pending

before the Court challenging the election process on the ground of

caste certificate. Therefore, FIR lodged against petitioner is totally

false and concocted. Earlier, a writ petition was filed by one Balveer

Singh for registering the FIR but the same was dismissed as

withdrawn by this Court on 12/01/2009 vide Annexure A9 in WP

No.4085/008. Hence, continuance of criminal proceeding against

petitioner is an abuse of process of law and the same will cause a

great prejudice/ injustice to the petitioner. It is further submitted

that in the matter of claim of caste certificate, the Police has no

jurisdiction to directly register an FIR, the only power is vested with

the State High Level Caste Scrutiny Committee to enquire into the

matter regarding forged and fabricated caste certificate in the light

of direction of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Ku. Madhuri

Patil & Another vs. Additional Commissioner, Tribal

Development and Others, reported in AIR 1995 SC 94. When

caste certificate is found forged or fabricated by MP State Caste

Scrutiny Committee, then the Committee shall recommend the

matter to the District Collector to register an FIR against the

accused who has obtained the caste certificate by forgery and not

otherwise. In support of contention, learned counsel for the

petitioner has relied upon the order dated 30/09/2010 passed by a

coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Malkit Singh vs.

State and Another (MCRC No. 5944 of 2010) and the judgment

passed by this Court in the case of Vikas Jagdish Shipuriya &

Another vs. State of MP, reported in 2002 (3) MPLJ 417. It is

further submitted that during pendency of this petition, the

Coordinate Bench of this Court in WP No.7047/2013 vide order

dated 01/05/2019 directed the MP State High Level Caste Scrutiny

Committee to decide afresh the claim of caste of petitioner. As per

direction of this Court, MP State High Level Caste Scrutiny

Committee conducted an enquiry and after recording the evidence

of parties,found that the certificate obtained by the petitioner is

genuine.Therefore, in order to secure the ends of justice, the

impugned FIR as well as other subsequent criminal proceedings

initiated against the petitioner therefrom, deserves to be quashed by

allowing this petition.

(4) On the other hand, learned counsel for the State supported

the impugned FIR and submitted that considering the nature of

allegations levelled against the petitioner, this petition deserves

dismissal.

(5) Heard learned counsel for the parties through VC and perused

documents available on record.

(6) Before entering into the allegations, this Court thinks it

apposite to consider the scope of interference in exercise of powers

under Section 482 CrPC while quashing FIR/criminal proceedings.

(7) The Hon'ble Apex Court in the matter of State of Haryana

and Others vs. Ch. Bhajan Lal & Others reported in AIR 1992

SC 604 has held as under:-

''108. In the backdrop of the interpretation of the various relevant provisionsof the Code under Chapter XIV and of the principles of law enunciated by this Court in a series of decisions relating to the exercise of the extraordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code which we have extracted and reproduced above, we give the following categories of cases by way of illustration wherein such power could be exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it may

not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently channelized and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list of my raid kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised.

(1) Where the allegations made in the First Information Report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused.

(2) Where the allegations in the First Information Report and other materials, if any, accompanying the F.I.R. do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156(1)of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2)of the Code.

(3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused.

(4) Where, the allegations in the F.I.R. 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.

(5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused.

(6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party.

(7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously Instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge.''

(8) In the matter of Prashant Bharti vs. State of NCT of Delhi

reported in (2013)9 SCC 293, the Hon'ble Apex Court has

delineated the following steps in regard to determination of veracity

of prayer for quashing FIR/criminal proceedings raised by accused

by invoking the power vested in the High Court u/S. 482 CrPC:-

''(i) Step one, whether the material relied upon by the accused is sound, reasonable, and indubitable, i.e., the material is of sterling and impeccable quality?

(ii) Step two, whether the material relied upon by the accused, would rule out the assertions contained in the charges levelled against the accused, i.e., the material is sufficient to reject and overrule the factual assertions contained in the complaint, i.e., the material is such, as would persuade a reasonable person to dismiss and condemn the factual basis of the accusations as false.

(iii) Step three, whether the material relied upon by the accused, has not been refuted by the prosecution/complainant; and/or the material is such, that it cannot be justifiably refuted by the prosecution/complainant?

(iv) Step four, whether proceeding with the trial would result in an abuse of process of the court, and would not serve the ends of justice?

If the answer to all the steps is in the affirmative, judicial conscience of the High Court should persuade it to quash such criminal proceedings, in exercise of power vested in it under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. Such exercise of power, besides doing justice to the accused, would save precious court time, which would otherwise be wasted in holding such a trial (as well as, proceedings arising therefrom) specially when, it is clear that the same would not conclude in the conviction of the accused."

(9) The Hon'ble Apex Court in the matter of M. Srikanth vs.

State of Telangana, reported in (2019) 10 SCC 373 has also held as

under :-

''17. It could thus be seen, that this Court has held, that where the allegations made in the FIR or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute a case against the accused, the High Court would be justified in quashing the proceedings.

Further, it has been held that where the uncontroverted allegations in the FIR and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose any offence and make out a case against the accused, the Court would be justified in quashing the proceedings.''

(10) On perusal of record, it is apparent that the caste certificate

of Keer (SC) was issued by SDM in favour of petitioner considering

the caste status as per the State of Punjab (Amritsar) and on the

basis of the said certificate, Tahsildar, Ashok Nagar (MP) has issued

a caste certificate of Keer (OBC) in favour of the petitioner on

02/12/1999. In view of decision of MP State High Level Caste

Scrutiny Committee dated 11/11/2004, concerning authority has

issued caste certificate in favour of petitioner on 03/11/2008 vide

Annexure A5 and thereafter, MP State High Level Caste Scrutiny

Committee has finalized the caste status of petitioner, which has

attained finality vide order dated 18/12/2019 holding the petitioner

himself to be category of Nat Bazigar (SC). It is also on record that