[Cites 12, Cited by 0]
Madhya Pradesh High Court
Smt. Shakuntala Yadav D/O Ramnarayan ... vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 4 February, 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:10234
1 MCRC-53684-2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE HIMANSHU JOSHI
ON THE 4 th OF FEBRUARY, 2026
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 53684 of 2023
SMT. SHAKUNTALA YADAV D/O RAMNARAYAN YADAV
Versus
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Ahadulla Usmani - Advocate for the applicant.
Shri Swatantra Pandey - Panel Lawyer for respondent/State.
Shri Bhagwan Das Patel - Advocate for respondent no.2.
WITH
CRIMINAL REVISION No. 368 of 2024
SMT. SHAKUNTALA YADAV D/O RAMNARAYAN YADAV
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Ahadulla Usmani - Advocate for the applicant.
Shri Swatantra Pandey - Panel Lawyer for respondent/State.
Shri Bhagwan Das Patel - Advocate for respondent No.2.
ORDER
These petitions arise out of the same complaint, therefore, are being
decided by a common order.
2. MCrC No.53684/2023 has been filed under Section 482 of CrPC
invoking the inherent jurisdiction of this Court for quashment of the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:10234
2 MCRC-53684-2023
impugned order dated 07.11.2023 whereby application under Sections 227
and 228 CrPC for discharge of applicant from the offences under Sections
420, 467, 468, and 471 IPC was rejected and Criminal Revision No.368/2024
has been filed under Section 397(1)/401(1) of CrPC, 1973 against the order
dated 8.11.2023 framing charges against the applicant under aforesaid
offences. Both the orders have been passed in Sessions Trial No. 38/2023 by
the learned Ist Additional Sessions Judge, Jatara, District Tikamgarh (M.P.).
3. Brief facts of the case are that the complainant filed a complaint U/s
190 of CrPC before the Judicial Magistrate First Class Jatara, District
Tikamgarh on 14.07.2017 alleging manipulation in the selection for the post
of Gram Rojgar Sahayak, which was registered on 03.09.2022 as Criminal
Case No. 568/2022 for offences under Sections 420, 467, 468, and 471 IPC
and later committed as Sessions Trial No.38/2023. The applicant had applied
within the cut-off date of 24.08.2012 and subsequently submitted her DCA
marksheet, which was duly verified by Makhanlal Chaturvedi Rashtriya
Patrakarita Vishwavidyalaya and found to be genuine. On merit, she was
appointed. The appointment was unsuccessfully challenged before the
Collector and thereafter before this Court. Upon remand, the competent
authority, relying on the case of Mrs. Rekha Chaturvedi vs. University of
Rajasthan and Others [1993 Supp (3) SCC 168] , upheld the selection, found
no forgery, and permitted the applicant to continue in service. Despite this,
the applicant's application for discharge under Sections 227 and 228 CrPC
was rejected by the impugned order dated 07.11.2023, necessitating the
present misc. criminal case (MCRC No.53684/2023) before this Court,
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:10234
3 MCRC-53684-2023
wherein vide order dated 05.12.2023 (Annexure-14), further proceedings
before the learned Trial Court were stayed. That, meanwhile, vide order
dated 08.11.2023, the learned Trial Court framed charges against the
applicant under Sections 420, 467, 468, and 471 IPC, to which the applicant
pleaded not guilty. Being aggrieved by the said order of framing charges, the
present revision is filed.
4. Learned counsel for applicant submitted that the entire case of the
prosecution rests on the allegation that the applicant secured appointment on
the basis of a forged DCA marksheet, whereas the said marksheet was
verified twice by the appointing authorities and the University and found it to
be genuine. He also submitted that the complainant never challenged the
report dated 03.01.2017 (Annexure-13) submitted by the competent
authorities in compliance with the order of this Court, which upheld the
merit list and found no forgery. Once the appointing authorities, after due
verification, maintained the merit list and permitted the applicant to continue
in service, the criminal complaint is not maintainable and continuation of
proceedings amounts to abuse of process of law. In support of his
submission, he placed reliance on the settled law, as laid down in Mrs. Rekha
Chaturvedi vs. University of Rajasthan and Others (supra). Even if the entire
prosecution case is accepted at its face value, no offence under Sections 420,
467, 468, or 471 IPC is made out. The learned Trial Court failed to
appreciate that repeated verification by State authorities rules out any
allegation of forgery or fabrication. The impugned order rejecting discharge
suffers from non-application of mind and has resulted in grave miscarriage
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:10234
4 MCRC-53684-2023
of justice. Continuation of criminal proceedings will cause irreparable loss
and undue harassment to the applicant. The prosecution case is false,
baseless, and vexatious and is liable to be quashed. He further submitted that
the applicant reserves the right to raise additional grounds at the time of
hearing, therefore, prayer for quashing the impugned order dated 07.11.2023
and discharging the applicant from the alleged offences is made in the
MCrC.
5. In criminal revision it has been submitted that the order framing charges
is illegal, perverse, and contrary to law and is therefore liable to be set aside.
The entire allegation rests on an alleged forged DCA marksheet, which has
been verified repeatedly by the University and appointing authorities and
found to be genuine. The settled law permits consideration of certificates
submitted after the cut-off date if the candidate was otherwise eligible, and
therefore no offence under Sections 420, 467, 468, or 471 IPC is made out.
6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
7. The record reveals that the complainant has filed a private complaint
alleging that the petitioner-accused Shakuntala Yadav obtained employment
by producing a forged D.C.A. marksheet. During the course of inquiry and
investigation, prima facie material has been collected showing that the
marksheet relied upon by the petitioner was not issued by the concerned
institution and was used by her for securing employment.
8. At the stage of consideration under Sections 227 and 228 CrPC, the
Court is only required to see whether a prima facie case is made out and not
to conduct a meticulous appreciation of evidence. The material on record
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:10234
5 MCRC-53684-2023
discloses grave suspicion against the petitioner regarding commission of
offences punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468 and 471 of the IPC, which
is sufficient for framing of charges.
9. The contentions raised by the petitioner pertain to disputed questions of
fact, which can only be adjudicated during trial. The inherent jurisdiction
under Section 482 CrPC cannot be exercised to stifle a legitimate prosecution
or to evaluate the defence of the accused at this preliminary stage.
10. Accordingly, no illegality, perversity or jurisdictional error is found in
the impugned order rejecting the application under Section 227 CrPC and
framing charges under Section 228 CrPC. Consequently, the petition under
Section 482 CrPC as well as the criminal revision petition are hereby
dismissed.
(HIMANSHU JOSHI)
JUDGE
rv
