Shanti Devi vs State Of Rajasthan
2022 Latest Caselaw 6748 Raj

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 1088/2019

Shanti Devi W/o Sh. Bhera Ram Soni, Aged About 64 Years, B/c Soni, R/o Village Dhirdesar Purohitan, Teh. Shri Dungargarh, Dist. Bikaner (Raj.)

----Petitioner Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp

2. Ratan Singh S/o Dhanpat Singh, By Caste Jat, Resident Of Dhirdesar Purohitan, Tehsil Shri Dungargarh, Dist.

           Bikaner (Raj.)
                                                                       ----Respondents



For Petitioner(s)             :     Mr. C.P. Soni
For Respondent(s)             :     Mr. Mukhtiyar Khan, PP

HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI

Judgment

Reseved on 05/05/2022 Pronounced on 07/05/2022

1. In the wake of instant surge in COVID - 19 cases and spread

of its highly infectious Omicron variant, abundant caution is being

maintained, while hearing the matters in the Court, for the safety

of all concerned.

2. This criminal revision petition under Section 397 read with

Section 401 Cr.P.C. has been preferred claiming the following

reliefs:

"It is therefore prayed that this revision may kindly be allowed and the order impugned dated 10-07-2019 passed by the Additional District Judge, No. 2, Bikaner (Camp Dungargarh) in Criminal Revision No. 13/2017 titled Ratan

(2 of 6) [CRLR-1088/2019]

Singh v/s State of Rajasthan and another may kindly be set aside and the order dated 12-09-2017 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Shri Dungargarh in Criminal Original Case No. 489/2016 titled State of Rajasthan v/s Shanti Devi may be restored. Any other relief which is considered just and proper may kindly be granted in favour of the petitioner."

3. The brief facts of the case as placed before this Court by the

learned counsel for the revisionist-petitioner are that the

complainant-respondent no. 2 filed a complaint against the

revisionist-petitioner before the Police Station Shri Dungargarh,

alleging therein that the petitioner, Smt.Shanti Devi and one Smt.

Sunita d/o Shri Mohan Dan had contested the election for the post

of Sarpanch of the village, Dhirdesar Purohitan against each other,

which the revisionist-petitioner had won. It was however, alleged

that on the day of filing the nomination, the revisionist-petitioner

had filled the form mentioning therein that he was a Class VIII

pass, and that she had attached the T.C. as proof of the same, but

the same was allegedly forged and fabricated. It was further

stated in the complaint that the complainant had sought a copy of

the necessary record in relation to the aforementioned certificate

under the Right to Information Act, 2005, but that the

complainant was informed that on account of a flood, which had

occurred in the year 1978-79, the entire record was destroyed.

3.1 On the basis of the aforementioned complaint, a case was

registered against the petitioner, wherein, after investigation the

police filed a charge sheet against the revisionist-petitioner for the

offences under Sections 420, 467, 468 and 471 I.P.C. and that the

(3 of 6) [CRLR-1088/2019]

learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Shri Dungargarh,

Bikaner subsequently discharged the revisionist-petitioner of the

above-mentioned offences vide order 12.09.2017, but that the

learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 2, Bikaner, vide the

impugned order dated 10.07.2019, while quashing and setting

aside the aforementioned order dated 12.09.2017, directed the

learned trial court to frame charges against the revisionist-

petitioner for the above-mentioned offences and proceed with the

trial accordingly.

4. Learned counsel for the revisionist-petitioner submitted that

the learned lower appellate court has erred in quashing and

setting aside the order of discharge passed by the learned trial

court, and that it did not take into due consideration the overall

facts and circumstances of the case and the material placed on

record before it.

4.1 Learned counsel further submits that the learned trial court

rightly took into consideration that the two affidavits in the case,

both of which were given by Bhanwar Lal Purohit, one dated

14.02.2015, and that the stamp of the same was purchased by

one Hetu Dan Charan who was one of the complainants, and real

uncles of the rival candidate, Smt. Sunita and the other dated

21.12.2015, wherein he stated that he is unaware as to who

signed the T.C. of the revisionist-petitioner, and who were the

teachers in Shiv Private school during the period in question and

that there were 2/3 persons named Bhanwarlal at that time.

4.2 Learned counsel also submits that Bhanwarlal Purohit, in the

second affidavit, stated that he signed the first affidavit at the

(4 of 6) [CRLR-1088/2019]

instance of Hetu Dan Charan and Ratan Singh Jat, and that he was

unaware of the contents of the first affidavit.

4.3 Learned counsel further submits that the learned trial court

rightly held that, on the basis of the above-mentioned, the version

of the prosecution was unreliable and therefore, it would be

appropriate to discharge the revisionist-petitioner.

4.4 Learned counsel also submits that the T.C. being forged and

fabricated are baseless allegations, as the T.C. was deposited in

the year 2011 itself, while she stood for elections only in the year

2015, and therefore, the allegation that the revisionist-petitioner

forged and fabricated the T.C. is illogical.

5. Learned Public Prosecutor opposes the submissions made on

behalf of the petitioner, and submits that the learned trial court in

fact erred in discharging the revisionist-petitioner, and the learned

lower appellate court rightly found a prima facie case to be made

out against the revisionist-petitioner, and rightly ordered for

framing of charges for the offences under the above mentioned

Sections of the I.P.C.

5.1 Learned Public Prosecutor further submits that the learned

lower appellate court, has rightly found that a prima facie case

against the revisionist-petitioner is made out, since during the

year in question, there was no person named Bhanwarlal serving

as Headmaster in Shiv Private school and that the T.C., which was

allegedly forged and fabricated, was also not entered into the

records of the school, and thus, the authenticity of the same was

rightly called into question.

(5 of 6) [CRLR-1088/2019]

6. Learned Public Prosecutor further submits that at the stage

of framing of charges against the revisionist-petitioner, a detailed

analysis or a roving enquiry is not required.

7. Learned Public Prosecutor harped upon the word

"presumption" occurring in Section 228 Cr.P.C. stating that if the

Judge is of the opinion that a ground for presumption of the

alleged offence against the accused lies after consideration and

hearing of the case, then charges can be framed against such

accused.

8. Heard learned counsel for both parties and perused the

record of the case.

9. This Court observes that the learned lower appellate court,

vide impugned order 10.07.2019, has recorded a clear finding that

after a perusal of the evidences placed on record before it, it is

clear that at the time of the issuance of the T.C. in the name of

the revisionist-petitioner, from Shiv Private School, Dungargarh

during the year 1978-79, no person named Bhanwarlal was the

Principal / Headmaster of the said school, as well as that

Bhanwarlal has himself stated that he did not sign the T.C. in

question, of the revisionist-petitioner and therefore, prima facie it

appears that the T.C. is question, which provides assistance to the

claim of being a Class VIII pass i.e. the educational qualifications

of the revisionist-petitioner, was forged and fabricated.

10. This Court further observes that, at the stage of framing of

charge, the learned court below is not required to conduct a

meticulous appreciation of evidence or a roving inquiry into the

same, as was laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the

(6 of 6) [CRLR-1088/2019]

judgments rendered in Ashish Chadha v. Asha Kumari and Ors

(2012) 1 SCC 680 and State of NCT of Delhi and Ors. vs.

Shiv Charan Bansal and Ors. (2020) 2 SCC 290.

11. This Court is also conscious of the judgment rendered by the

Hon'ble Apex Court in State of Maharashtra and Ors. Vs. Som

Nath Thapa (1996) 4 SCC 659, wherein it was observed that a

prima facie test was to be applied at the stage of framing of

charge and the probative value of the materials on record cannot

be gone into. The meaning of the word "presume" was also

analyzed and it was held to mean that unless evidence to the

contrary is forthcoming.

12. In light of the above made observations, this Court finds that

the impugned order passed by the learned Additional Sessions

Judge No.2, Bikaner (Camp) Dungargarh, District Bikaner does not

suffer from any legal infirmity, and therefore, the same does not

call for any interference by this Court, at this stage.

13. Consequently, the present petition is dismissed. All pending

applications stand disposed of.

(DR.PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI), J.

Skant/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)