Rajasthan High Court

Laluram S/O Shri Kanaram B/C Yadav vs State Of Rajasthan on 24 February, 2021

Bench: Mahendar Kumar Goyal

       HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
                   BENCH AT JAIPUR

        S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 55/2020

Laluram    S/o      Shri   Kanaram,         Aged       About      54      Years,   R/o
Sukhalpura, Police Station Renwal, District Jaipur, Raj.
                                                          ----Accused-Petitioner
                                       Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through PP.
                                                                    ----Respondent

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Suresh Pareek Sr. Adv. with Mr. N.C. Sharma & Mr. S.L. Sharma & Mr. Nachiketa Pareek For Respondent(s) : Mr. F.R. Meena, PP For Complainant : Mr. Anoop Dhand

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL Judgment

24/02/2021

This criminal misc. petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is filed

against the order dated 05.12.2019 passed by the Additional

Sessions Judge No.1, Sambhar Lake, District Jaipur whereby, the

revision petition filed by the petitioner against the order dated

27.02.2017 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial

Magistrate, Sambhar Lake, District Jaipur framing charges against

the petitioner under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 474 and 120-B

of IPC, has been dismissed.

Assailing the order, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner

submitted that allegation against him was of furnishing false

information before the Returning Officer while submitting

nomination papers and in view of provisions of Section 195(1)(a)

Cr.P.C., complaint could have been filed by the public servant, i.e.,

by the Returning Officer only and no private complaint was

(2 of 5) [CRLMP-55/2020]

maintainable. Referring the contents of FIR No.53/2015 registered

at Police Station Data Ramgarh, District Sikar, learned Senior

Counsel submitted that in case of Smt. Kiran Kanwar Vs. State

of Rajasthan and Anr., in S.B. Criminal Misc. (Petition)

No.4345/2019, arising out of the aforesaid FIR involving

identical facts, this Court, vide its judgment dated 10.12.2019,

quashed the proceeding initiated on behest of private complaint in

view of bar contained under Section 195(1)(a) Cr.P.C. He

submitted that the Special Leave to Petition preferred against the

aforesaid judgment has been dismissed by the Hon'ble Apex

Court. He, therefore, prayed that the order impugned be quashed

and he may be discharged from the offences under Sections 420,

467, 468, 471, 474 and 120-B of IPC.

Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor assisted by the learned

counsel for the complainant opposing the prayer submitted that in

the present case, the allegations disclose commission of

cognizable offence also and hence, the bar under Section 195 (1)

(a) Cr.P.C. is not applicable. They, therefore, prayed that the

criminal misc. petition be dismissed.

Heard learned counsels for the parties and perused the

record.

Undisputedly, there is categorical allegation against the

petitioner of forging and fabricating transfer certificate of Class-

VIII which he used alongwith his nomination papers submitted for

contesting election for the post of Sarpanch Gram Panchayat,

Mundoti. A perusal of the order passed by the learned trial Court

as well as learned revisional Court reveals that charges have been

framed against the petitioner and upheld taking into consideration

the material on record including the statements of complainant

(3 of 5) [CRLMP-55/2020]

and other witnesses recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. Shakil-Ur-

Rahman, who was Director of the school which has allegedly

issued the transfer certificate of the petitioner, has specifically

stated in the statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. that at

the relevant time i.e. in the year 1982 when the petitioner is

claimed to have passed Class- VIII from the institution, the same

was not in existence and the institution has issued no such

transfer certificate. Therefore, the findings of the learned Court

below are based on material on record and do not suffer from any

perversity or illegality.

Contention of the learned Senior counsel that complaint by

the public servant only was maintainable in view of provisions of

Section 195 (1)(a) Cr.P.C., is wholly misconceived. The provisions

of Section 195(1)(a) Cr.P.C. provides as under:-

"195. Prosecution for contempt of lawful authority of public servants, for offences againt public justice an dfor offences relating to documents given in evidence-(1) No Court shall take cognizance-

(a) (i) of any offence punishable under sections 172 to 188 (both inclusive) of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860 ), or

(ii) of any abetment of, or attempt to commit, such offence, or

(iii) of any criminal conspiracy to commit such offence, except on the complaint in writing of the public servant concerned or of some other public servant to whom he is administratively subordinate;"

In the present case, the allegations, beside submitting false

information with the Returning Officer, are with regard to forging

and fabricating a document also, for which private complaint was

very well maintainable. The judgment of the co-ordinate Bench of

this Court in case of Smt. Kiran Kanwar (supra) has no

applicability in the facts and circumstances of the present case. In

(4 of 5) [CRLMP-55/2020]

that case, this Court proceeded to quash the criminal proceeding

against the petitioner therein relying on judgment of another co-

ordinate Bench of this Court in case of Rekha Bano Vs. State of

Rajasthan and Anr., in S.B. Criminal Misc. (Petition)

No.1561/2019 decided on 07.03.2019. In Rekha Bano

(supra), this Court recorded a categorical finding as under:-

"There is no allegation in the entire FIR that the petitioner ever fabricated or forged any document. The only allegation against the petitioner is that she had wrongly deposed in the affidavit that she is mother of two children. Thus, according to the complaint, the petitioner had furnished a wrong information to the Returning Officer, who is a public official/public servant."

Undisputedly, in the present case, there is specific allegation

against the petitioner of forging and fabricating transfer certificate

of Class- VIII which has been found to be substantiated by the

material collected by the investigating agency during course of

investigation. It is trite that judgment of Court cannot be treated

as Euclid's formula and has to be read in the factual matrix

involved therein.

Contention of the learned Senior Counsel to assess the

precedential value of the judgment of this Court in case of Smt.

Kiran Kanwar (supra) analyzing the contents of FIR out of which

that judgment arose, is wholly misconceived. A judgment can be a

binding precedent only for what has been considered and held in

it. No Court can travel beyond the facts mentioned and considered

therein to cull out "ratio decidendi". A Division Bench of the

Allahabad High Court has, in case of Ashok Kumar Vs. State of

U.P. and Ors., MANU/UP/0618/2001, held as under:-

"10.The observations of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in State of U.P. v. Shakeel Ahmad (supra) pertained to a case of detention under the Conservation

(5 of 5) [CRLMP-55/2020]

of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, which is a social offence affecting the society at large. Under Article 141 of the Constitution of India, only those precedents of Hon'ble Supreme Court are binding upon this Court where the entire facts of the case, pleas taken by the opposite parties, and the law on the subject have been discussed and elaborated. Every judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court, which does not deal with all those questions, cannot be said to be a binding precedent under Article 141 of the Constitution. In State of V. P. v. Shakeel Ahamad (supra) neither the facts involved were mentioned nor the law on the subject was elaborated and explained, hence the view taken by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case noted above which the learned counsel for the petitioner has cited, cannot be said to be a precedent."

As already held, the case of Smt. Kiran Kanwar (supra) has

been decided on the basis of another judgment of this Court in

case of Rekha Bano (supra), wherein it has specifically been

observed that there was no allegation in the FIR of forging and

fabricating any document, which is specifically levelled herein and

hence, the same has no applicability in the facts and

circumstances of the present case.