Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 798 (RAJ)

Guddi v. State of Rajasthan

2016-05-31

VIJAY BISHNOI

body2016
ORDER : Vijay Bishnoi, J. 1. This Criminal Misc. Petition under section 482 CrPC has been filed by the petitioner with a prayer for quashing of the FIR No. 24/2015 lodged at Police Station, Balesar, District Jodhpur for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B IPC. 2. The impugned FIR has been lodged on the basis of a complaint filed by the complainant mainly with the allegation that in the General Election, 2015 for the post of Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat, Dandhaniya Bhayala, Tehsil Balesar, District Jodhpur the accused- persons submitted forged documents along with nomination form and used the same as genuine, therefore, committed offence of cheating and forgery. 3. The main contention of the petitioner is to the effect that the documents submitted by her along with nomination form are not forged and the allegations levelled in the impugned FIR are false and, therefore, the impugned FIR may be quashed. 4. Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the prayer of the petitioner and argued that the allegations contained in the impugned FIR do constitute a case for commission of cognisable offence, therefore, the impugned FIR is not liable to be quashed. He has placed reliance on decisions of this Court at Jaipur Bench in Lalu Ram Yadav v. State of Rajasthan (Cr. Misc. Petition No. 2521/2015) decided on 24.09.2015 and Bhagwan Singh Parmar v. State of Rajasthan & Another, (Cr. Misc. No. 5587/2015) decided on 07.12.2015. 5. Heard learned counsel for the rival parties and perused the impugned FIR. 6. The main allegation levelled in the impugned FIR is to the effect that the accused-persons have prepared forged documents pertaining to educational qualification as well as the date of birth of children and submitted the same along with nomination form while claiming them as genuine. 7. This Court is of the opinion that at this stage, it cannot be concluded that whether the documents furnished by the accused-persons along with nomination form are forged or not and that can only be ascertained by investigation. 8. The law regarding quashing of the FIR by the High Court while exercising powers under section 482 CrPC is clearly defined by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Haryana & Others v. Bhajan Lal & Others, 1992 SCC (Cri) 426, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has elaborated the grounds on which FIR can be quashed. 8. The law regarding quashing of the FIR by the High Court while exercising powers under section 482 CrPC is clearly defined by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Haryana & Others v. Bhajan Lal & Others, 1992 SCC (Cri) 426, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has elaborated the grounds on which FIR can be quashed. The relevant para of the said judgment is reproduced hereunder: "102. In the backdrop of the interpretation of the various relevant provisions of the Code under Chapter XIV and of the principles of law enunciated by this Court in a series of decisions relating to the exercise of the extra-ordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent powers Under Section 482 of the Code which we have extracted and reproduced above, we give the following categories of cases by way of illustration wherein such power could be exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently channelised and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised. (1) Where the allegations made in the First Information Report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima-facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused. (2) Where the allegations in the First Information Report and other materials, if any, accompanying the F.I.R. do not disclose a cognisable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers Under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code. (3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused. (4) Where, the allegations in the F.I.R. do not constitute a cognisable offence but constitute only a non-cognisable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated Under Section 155(2) of the Code. (4) Where, the allegations in the F.I.R. do not constitute a cognisable offence but constitute only a non-cognisable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated Under Section 155(2) of the Code. (5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. (6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party. (7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala-fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge." 9. In the aforesaid decision, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that where the allegations in the FIR and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR, disclose a commission of cognisable offence, the FIR cannot be quashed. 10. After perusing the impugned FIR, this Court is of the opinion that the allegations contained in the FIR do constitute offences of cheating, forgery and using forged document as genuine, therefore, no case for quashing the impugned FIR is made out. Hence, the instant criminal misc. petition fails and is hereby dismissed. Stay petition also stands dismissed.