Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 952 (MP)

Rajmal Jain v. State of M. P.

2015-09-09

S.R.WAGHMARE

body2015
ORDER 1. By this MCrC the applicant has prayed for quashment of the FIR dated 21.6.2009, registered at Crime No.185/2009 for offence under sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 109, 120B of the IPC by Police Station Jawad, District Neemuch. Counsel for the applicant has vehemently urged the fact that the petition is completely covered by the order passed by this Court in Miscellaneous Criminal Case No.8086/2014, whereby the Court has also considered the fact that the prosecution was unfair and the applicant was alleged to have filed forged documents to the post of Samvida Shala Shikshak Grade II and III, but there is no incriminating evidence available on record against the applicant and final order has not been passed and according to the report of Thana Prabhari dated 4.3.2015. The investigation is still pending and the challan has not been put up even today after a period of six years and also perusing the Annexure A-5 by Chief Executive Officer, Jawad it would be clear that the terminations have been stayed. In view of the decision passed by this Court in Writ Petiton No.4091/2009 and others, whereby the scrutiny report is not found to be in accordance with the provisions of law and the petitioner is still continuing in service. 2. Counsel for the applicant fully relied on order passed by this Court in Miscellaneous Criminal Case No.8086/2014, where this Court has held thus : “3. Counsel for the applicants have vehemently submitted that the prosecution was unfair. In the complaint the complainant had submitted that the applicants had filed forged documents for the appointment, but no incriminating evidence is available on record against the applicants and no final order has been passed and in fact according to the report of the Thana Prabhari dated 4.3.2015 that the investigation is still continuing and therefore, no challan has been put up. It is also mentioned that 42 applicants were being proceeded and Counsel at this juncture urged that the other applicants were selected for the post and they are working in the post and the present applicants are deprived of the same; on the ground of parity, the applicants are also entitled to be continued in the post. There are no other mala fides impugned against the applicants and the offence under sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 109 and 120B of the IPC, are not made out against them. There are no other mala fides impugned against the applicants and the offence under sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 109 and 120B of the IPC, are not made out against them. Hence, Counsel prayed that the impugned FIR be quashed. 4. Per Contra, Counsel for the respondent/State has vehemently submitted that it was the CEO, who was made the complaint and 42 applicants were proceeded against and the documents were seized according to Janpad Panchayat, but the Investigation Officer did not have any sufficient material evidence and has prayed for time. Counsel candidly admitted that the investigation is not completed even today. However, counsel prayed for dismissal of the petitions. 5. On considering the entire controversy, it is found that the future of the present applicants cannot be allowed to be placed in jeopardy in such a fashion and hence I find that the FIR is liable to be quashed. If at all the Investigating Authority come to a different conclusion, then, they are at liberty to take appropriate action against the present applicants. However, the present FIR dated 21.6.2009 registered at the Police Station Jawad, District Neemuch against both the petitioners is hereby quashed.” 3. Counsel for the applicant prayed that the FIR in the present case also be quashed. 4. Counsel for the respondent/State in the present case has again failed to give any information regarding the enquiry report and whether the investigation has been completed and whether the experience certificate of the present applicant has still been held to be fraudulent. 5. On considering the pendency that criminal proceeding is seriously affecting the future prospects of the applicant, on grounds of parity alone, the petition is allowed. The ratio laid-down in such a case Miscellaneous Criminal Case No.8086/2014 shall apply mutatis mutandis to the present case also and it is therefore directed that FIR dated 21.6.2009 registered at Crime No.185/2009 under sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 109, 120B of the IPC by Police Station Jawad, District Neemuch is hereby quashed. The petition is, therefore, allowed. 6. However, it is made clear that in case, the Investigating Authority comes to different conclusion, which shall be free to take appropriate action against the present applicant also.