Rajasthan High Court
Ramlal Gochar S/O Bhanwar Lal ... vs State Of Rajasthan on 17 February, 2021
Bench: Mahendar Kumar Goyal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 1607/2020
Ramlal Gochar S/o Bhanwar Lal Gochar, Resident Of 36, Devali
Deoli Bundi Rajasthan
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
2. Superintendent Of Poice, Bundi
3. Station House Officer (S.h.o.), Police Station Kaprain,
District Bundi
4. Investigation Officer, Police Station Kaprain Distt. Bundi
5. Rinku Kumar S/o Shri Shrawan Kumar, Aged About 27
Years, By Caste Gurjar Resident Of Roteda Police Station
Kaprain District Bundi.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Sudarshan Kumar Laddha
For Respondent(s) : Mr. F.R. Meena, P.P.
Mr. Amit Jindal with
Mr. Dharmendra Dhakar
Ms. Vandana Sharma
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL
Order
17/02/2021
This criminal miscellaneous petition under Section 482 of
CrPC has been filed for quashing the FIR No.31/2020 dated
21.02.2020 lodged at Police Station Kaprain, District Bundi for the
offences under Sections 420, 467 & 468 of IPC.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the only
allegation in the FIR is of furnishing false information in the
nomination paper submitted by him with the Returning Officer for
contesting election for the post of Sarpanch, Grampanchayat-
(2 of 5) [CRLMP-1607/2020]
Roteda. Relying on the judgments of this Court in cases of Balbir
Singh versus State of Rajasthan reported in 2016 (4) Cr.L.R.
(RaJ.) 1824 & Nijnam Meena versus State of Rajasthan, SB
Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No.3376/2017 decided on
27.10.2017, learned counsel submitted that since the submission
of false information with the Returning Officer, i.e., a public
servant, is specifically covered under Section 177 IPC for which
prosecution can be launched by the concerned public servant only
in terms of Section 195(1)(a) IPC and hence, no FIR is
maintainable.
Per contra, opposing the prayer, learned Public Prosecutor
assisted by learned counsel for the complainant submitted that in
the FIR itself there are specific allegations against the petitioner of
not only submitting false affidavit for contesting election; but, also
of forging and fabricating documents such as Ration Card,
Bhamashah Card and documents to show fake date of birth of his
son Shankar Singh that too concealing his identity. They
contended that since the FIR discloses commission of cognizable
offence, the same cannot be quashed by this Court under its
extraordinary jurisdiction. They, therefore, submitted that the
controversy is not covered by judgments of this Court in cases of
Balbir Singh (supra) & Nijnam Meena (supra) wherein the only
allegation was of furnishing false information to the Returning
Officer.
Heard learned counsels for the parties and perused the
record.
The contents of the FIR reveal that the allegation against the
petitioner is not only of submitting false information on oath with
the Returning Officer; but, of creating false and fabricated
(3 of 5) [CRLMP-1607/2020]
documents also. A perusal of the case diary reveals that thare is
prima-facie material available therein to substantiate the
allegation levelled in the FIR. In these circumstances, judgments
of this Court in cases of Balbir Singh (supra) & Nijnam Meena
(supra) are of no assistance to him since the FIR in question
discloses commission of cognizable offences also.
The Hon'ble Apex Court of India in case of State of Andhra
Pradesh Vs. Bajjoori Kanthaiah and Ors., AIR 2009 SCC
671, held as under:-
"8. As noted above, the powers possessed by the
High Court under Section 482 of the Code are very wide
and the very plenitude of the power requires great
caution in its exercise. Court must be careful to see
that its decision in exercise of this power is based on
sound principles. The inherent power should not be
exercised to stifle a legitimate prosecution. High Court
being the highest Court of a State should normally
refrain from giving a prima facie decision in a case
where the entire facts are incomplete and hazy, more
so when the evidence has not been collected and
produced before the Court and the issues involved,
whether factual or legal, are of magnitude and cannot
be seen in their true perspective without sufficient
material. Of course, no hard and fast rule can be laid
down in regard to cases in which the High Court will
exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction of quashing the
proceeding at any stage.(See: The Janata Dal etc. v.
H.S. Chowdhary and others, etc. (AIR 1993 SC 892),
Dr. Raghubir Saran v. State of Bihar and another (AIR
1964 SC 1)). It would not be proper for the High Court
to analyse the case of the complainant in the light of all
probabilities in order to determine whether a conviction
would be sustainable and on such premises, arrive at a
conclusion that the proceedings are to be quashed. It
would be erroneous to assess the material before it and
conclude that the complaint cannot be proceeded with.
In proceeding instituted on complaint, exercise of the
inherent powers to quash the proceedings is called for
only in a case where the complaint does not disclose
any offence or is frivolous, vexatious or oppressive. If
the allegations set out in the complaint do not
constitute the offence of which cognizance has been
taken by the Magistrate, it is open to the High Court to
quash the same in exercise of the inherent powers
(4 of 5) [CRLMP-1607/2020]
under Section 482 of the Code. It is not, however,
necessary that there should be meticulous analysis of
the case before the trial to find out whether the case
would end in conviction or acquittal. The
complaint/F.I.R. has to be read as a whole. If it
appears that on consideration of the allegations
in the light of the statement made on oath of the
complainant or disclosed in the F.I.R. that the
ingredients of the offence or offences are
disclosed and there is no material to show that
the complaint/F.I.R. is mala fide, frivolous or
vexatious, in that event there would be no
justification for interference by the High Court.
When an information is lodged at the police station and
an offence is registered, then the mala fides of the
informant would be of secondary importance. It is the
material collected during the investigation and evidence
led in Court which decides the fate of the accused
person. The allegations of mala fides against the
informant are of no consequence and cannot by itself
be the basis for quashing the proceeding. (See : Mrs.
Dhanalakshmi v. R. Prasanna Kumar and others (AIR
1990 SC 494), State of Bihar and another v. P. P.
Sharma, I.A.S. and another (1992 Suppl (1) SCC 222),
Rupan Deol Bajaj (Mrs.) and another v. Kanwar Pal
Singh Gill and another (1995 (6) SCC 194), State of
Kerala and others v. O.C. Kuttan and others (1999 (2)
SCC 651), State of U.P. v. O. P. Sharma (1996 (7) SCC
705), Rashmi Kumar (Smt.) v. Mahesh Kumar Bhada
(1997 (2) SCC 397), Satvinder Kaur v. State (Govt. of
NCT of Delhi) and another (1999 (8) SCC 728), Rajesh
Bajaj v. State NCT of Delhi and others AIR 1999 SC
1216), State of Karnataka v. M. Devendrappa and
another (2002 (3) SCC 89)."
The Hon'ble Apex Court of India in case of Dr. Monica
Kumar & Anr. Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors., AIR 2008
SCC 2781, held as under:-
"30.We may reiterate and emphasise that the
powers possessed by the High Court under Section
482 Cr.P.C. are very wide and the very plenitude of
the power requires great caution in its exercise.
Court must be careful to see that its decision in
exercise of this power is based on sound principles.
The inherent power should not be exercised to
stifle a legitimate prosecution. The High Court
being the highest court of a State should normally
refrain from giving a prima facie decision in a case
where the entire facts are incomplete and hazy,
more so when the evidence has not been collected
and produced before the Court and the issues
(5 of 5) [CRLMP-1607/2020]
involved, whether factual or legal, are of magnitude
and cannot be seen in their true perspective
without sufficient material. Of course, no hard and
fast rule can be laid down in regard to cases in
which the High Court will exercise its jurisdiction of
quashing the proceeding at any stage. [See Janata
Dal v. H.S. Chowdhury (1992) 4 SCC 305; Raghubir
Saran Dr. v. State of Bihar 1964 (2) SCR 336;
Kurukshetra University v. State of Haryana (1977)
4 SCC 451; and Zhandu Pharmaceuticals Works
Limited and Others v. Mohd. Sharaful Haque and
Another 2005 (1) SCC 122].
Since, reading of the FIR in question in its entirety discloses
commission of cognizable offences also beside offence under
Chapter X of IPC, the same cannot be quashed applying the ratio
of the judgments of this Court in the cases of Balbir Singh
(supra) & Nijnam Meena (supra).
Resultantly, this criminal miscellaneous petition is dismissed
being devoid of merit.
(MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL),J
Manish/105
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
