Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 2088 (RAJ)

Raxpal Sihag v. State of Rajasthan

2013-11-25

SANDEEP MEHTA

body2013
JUDGMENT 1. - The instant misc. petition has been filed by the petitioner against the order dated 16.2.2013 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Churu in revision whereby the learned Sessions Judge affirmed the order dated 16.5.2005 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Churu accepting the Final Report filed by the Police Officers of the Police Station Kotwali, Churu after investigation of F.I.R. No. 73/2004 . 2. The instant misc. petition has been filed by the petitioner complainant against the a foresaid orders passed by the subordinate Courts seeking a direction for reinvestigation/further investigation of the case of the grounds proposed by the petitioner and on the basis of the documents available with him. 3. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the petitioner submitted a complaint in the Court of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Churu on 15.4.2004. As per the allegations levelled in the complaint, the respondents Naurang Lal and Parmeshwari Devi both being public servants used to reside at Government allotted quarters at the Churu Town. They fraudulently managed the induction of their names in the votes list prepared for the villages. It was also alleged that the retirement orders were prepared fraudulently by these accused and thus, valuable securities were forged. It was also alleged that a false declaration was made by these persons of the purpose of contesting elections. 4. The complaint thus submitted by the complainant was forwarded to the Police Station Kotwali, Churu under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. F.I.R. No. 73/2004 was registered at the said Police Station. The matter was thoroughly investigated and thereafter, the Police filed a negative Final Report in the case. The complainant appeared before the Trial Court and filed a protest petition. It was alleged by the complainant that the respondent Smt. Parmeshwari Devi contested the election of the Zila Parishad and the Zila Pramukh and for that purpose, fraudulently got her name inducted in the voter list of the village Khasoli by concealing the fact that she was residing in a Government quarter at Churu. It was alleged that the respondent Naurang Lal was a teacher and he gave a false declaration in the nomination papers regarding he being retired from service. The Police investigated the matter and found that no prima-facie offences under Sections 467, 468, 471 and 120B of the I.P.C. were disclosed from the admitted allegations of the complainant. It was alleged that the respondent Naurang Lal was a teacher and he gave a false declaration in the nomination papers regarding he being retired from service. The Police investigated the matter and found that no prima-facie offences under Sections 467, 468, 471 and 120B of the I.P.C. were disclosed from the admitted allegations of the complainant. For the remaining offences under the Representation of People Act, the complaint could have been filed by the Returning Officer only. Accordingly, the Final Report was submitted in the subordinate Court gave due consideration to the material available on the record and holding that the complaint in relation to the allegations levelled by the complainant petitioner disclosed only offences under the R.P. Act and could only be filed by the Returning Officer, proceeded to accept the Final Report. The complainant did not rest satisfied with the acceptance of the Final Report and challenged the order by way of a revision. The revisional Court too rejected the revision filed by the complainant and hence, this misc. petition. 5. Shri Nishant Motsara learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the respondent Naurang Lal contested the e lection for the Legislative Assembly and for that purpose, he sought voluntary retirement from the department, wherein he was working. While seeking voluntary retirement, Naurang Lal gave a false declaration regarding non-pendency of any departmental inquiry against him. Shri Motsara vehemently contended that the Dy. Director, Education. Department issued a letter dated 7.11.2003 mentioning that the case of Naurang Lal Verma for selection scale could not be considered as some preliminary inquiry was reported to be pending against him. Learned counsel submitted that despite the pendency of the inquiry, a certificate was issued by the Dy. Director, Education Department, Churu on 6.9.2003 that no inquiry was pending against him. Learned counsel thus submitted that the respondents should be prosecuted for these offences. In the alternative, he prayed that the investigating agency be directed to further investigate the matter. 6. Heard and considered the arguments advanced at the bar and perused the orders impugned and the record. 7. There is not even a semblance material whatsoever on the record of the case to even consider the entertaining of the allegations against the respondent Parmeshwari Devi. 6. Heard and considered the arguments advanced at the bar and perused the orders impugned and the record. 7. There is not even a semblance material whatsoever on the record of the case to even consider the entertaining of the allegations against the respondent Parmeshwari Devi. So far as the respondent Naurang Lal is concerned, it is alleged that an inquiry was pending against him at the time when he was given voluntary retirement. It has been vehemently contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that despite the pendency of the inquiry the Dy. Director, Education Department gave a false information regarding non-pendency of enquiry for facilitating the voluntary retirement of the respondent so that he could contest the elect on. He has placed much stress on the letter dated 7.11.2003 wherein pendency of some inquiry is mentioned. On a bare perusal of this letter, it is evident that the inquiry, which is referred to in the letter for considering the grant of selection pay scale to the respondent Naurang Lal was some preliminary inquiry. In the certificate dated 6.9.2003 issued under Rule 250(c) of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal), rules, it has been certified that no departmental proceedings under Rule 16 or 17 of the C.C.A. Rules was pending against Naurang Lal Thus, no wrong or fraudulent information was given in this certificate. The prerequisite for the acceptance of the voluntary retirement is the non-pendency of any departmental proceedings under Rule 16 or 17 of the C.C.A. Rules against the employee concerned. Mere pendency of a preliminary inquiry could not have been a reason to deny the prayer for voluntary retirement. Thus, no fraudulent act was committed by any of the concerned persons in facilitating the voluntary retirement of the respondent Naurang Lal so as to entitle him to contest the elections, the remaining allegations regarding.-the alleged false declaration could only have been acted upon if the Returning Officer had filed a complaint in that regard as per Section 195(1)(a) of the Cr.P.C. As no complaint was filed by the concerned officer i.e. the Returning Officer, the Police was not competent to carry out the investigation into the matter of the Court could not have taken cognizance of these offences in absence of the complaint. Therefore, in the opinion of this Court, the Trial Court acted well within its jurisdiction whilst accepting the FinalReport filed by the Police and the revisional Court too was wholly justified in rejecting the revision filed by the petitioner.Resultantly, the misc. petition is rejected.Record of the Court below be sent back forthwith.Petition dismissed. *******