Research › Search › Judgment

J&K High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 652 (JK)

Chanchal Kumari v. State of J&K

2020-12-03

SANJAY DHAR

body2020
Judgment Sanjay Dhar, J.—Through the medium of instant petition, the petitioners have challenged FIR No. 49/2015 registered with Police Station, Crime Branch, Jammu for offences under Sections 420/467/468/471/120-B RPC. 2. It is the case of the petitioners that in the year 1999, petitioner No.1 had qualified 12th standard from J&K Board of School Education, Jammu in Arts stream, where-after she acquired B.A. Degree in the year 2003 and MA Degree in the year 2006. It is averred that, at the instance of respondent No.2, the petitioner No.1 appeared in the examination of 12th standard in non-medical stream from the Board of Higher Secondary Education, Delhi for improving the chances of getting a job. It is further averred that petitioner No.1 entered into wedlock with petitioner No.2 in the year 2006, whereafter pursuant to an Advertisement Notice dated 06.02.2010 issued by the Chief Education Officer, Jammu, she applied for the post of ReT Teacher in Math and Science stream for Middle School, Channi Tana, Zone Jourian. It is averred that petitioner No.1 came to be appointed as ReT Teacher in terms of order No. ZEOJ/77 dated 01.05.2010 issued by the ZEO, Jourian. The petitioners go on to state that when, for the purpose of getting regularization, the verification of qualification certifications were to be carried out, respondent No.2/complainant demanded a sum of Rs.5.00 lac for getting the qualification certificates verified and when the petitioners refused to oblige, he got infuriated. It is further averred that when petitioner No.1 became doubtful about the genuineness of her 12th class certificate, she immediately resigned from the post of ReT Teacher vide resignation letter dated 11.08.2014. According to the petitioners, respondent No.2, in order to wreck vengeance upon them, lodged a complaint with respondent No.l and a preliminary verification was initiated thereon. It is alleged that during the course of preliminary verification, petitioner No.1 was harassed by the officials of Crime Branch, Jammu. It has also been contended that the petitioners are law abiding citizens and that they have not committed any crime, as such, the subject FIR be quashed. 3. It is alleged that during the course of preliminary verification, petitioner No.1 was harassed by the officials of Crime Branch, Jammu. It has also been contended that the petitioners are law abiding citizens and that they have not committed any crime, as such, the subject FIR be quashed. 3. Respondent No.1 has filed its status report, the crux of which, is that on the basis of a complaint lodged by respondent No.2/complainant which was endorsed to the Crime Branch, Jammu by the orders of learned CJM, Jammu a preliminary verification was undertaken and during the verification, it was found that petitioner No.1 was selected as a ReT Teacher on the basis of 12th class Marksheet issued by the Vinobabhave Sr. Secondary School Ellenabad Sirsa (Haryana) showing English, Math, Physics, Chemistry and Computer Science as the subjects. It was also found that petitioner No.1 had, in fact, passed 12th class from J&K Board of School Education, Jammu under Roll No.152874 and that no student by the name of petitioner No.1 had existed in the records of the Board of Higher Secondary Education, Delhi in the year 1999. Accordingly, a formal FIR No. 49/2015 for offences under Sections 420/467/468/471/120-B RPC came to be registered and investigation was set into motion. The status report further shows that after investigation of the case, it was found that 12th class marksheet of petitioner No.1 in Math stream was fake and fictitious on the basis of which she had succeeded in getting the job of ReT Teacher. It was further averred that petitioner No.2, the husband of petitioner No.1, had prepared/signed the recommendations i.e. tentative panel and zonal/panchayat/village level merit panel of the candidates at his own level which were accepted by the ZEO, Jourian while issuing the formal appointment order of petitioner No.1 as ReT Teacher. During the investigation of the case, it was found from the FSL report that petitioner No.2 had prepared/signed the aforesaid documents and it was also found that it is petitioner No.2, who had managed the fake Marksheet of 12th class of Math stream for his wife i.e. petitioner No.1. After investigation of the case, offences under Sections 420/467/468/471/120-B RPC have been found established against the petitioners herein and Sohan Lal Bindroo, the then ZEO, Jourian. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the record of the case. 5. After investigation of the case, offences under Sections 420/467/468/471/120-B RPC have been found established against the petitioners herein and Sohan Lal Bindroo, the then ZEO, Jourian. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the record of the case. 5. The main thrust of arguments of learned counsel for the petitioners is on the fact that the petitioners have been roped in on the basis of a complaint made by respondent No.2, who is having long standing enmity with them. According to the learned counsel, respondent No.2 is a blackmailer and when petitioners did not accede to her blackmailing tactics, he lodged a false complaint against them resulting in registration of the subject FIR. Learned counsel has further submitted that the petitioners are in possession of the material to show that the subject FIR is nothing, but an act of vengeance on the part of respondent No.2. She has further contended that the petitioners are educated people and they cannot be expected to be involved in the offences which are subject matter of investigation, particularly when there is nothing on record to show that petitioner No.1 had knowingly produced the fake 12th class Marksheet at the time of seeking her appointment as ReT Teacher. The learned counsel has further contended that as per the guidelines laid down by the Supreme Court in State of Haryana and ors vs Ch. Bhajan Lal and ors, 1992 AIR 604, FIR which is a result of vengeance is required to be quashed by the High Court in exercise of its powers under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. 6. Learned counsel for respondent No.1, on the other hand, has submitted that the police during the course of investigation have collected enough material to demonstrate the culpability of the petitioners and in fact, after investigation of the case, challan is ready to be filed against the petitioners and, but for the orders passed by this Court, it would have been filed. 7. The Supreme Court in the case of Dineshbhai Chandubhai Patel vs. State of Gujrat and others, 2018 3 SCC 104 has summarized the principles and scope with regard to the exercise of inherent powers of High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C in the context of a challenge to FIR. While doing so, the Supreme Court has observed as under: “30. The Supreme Court in the case of Dineshbhai Chandubhai Patel vs. State of Gujrat and others, 2018 3 SCC 104 has summarized the principles and scope with regard to the exercise of inherent powers of High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C in the context of a challenge to FIR. While doing so, the Supreme Court has observed as under: “30. The High Court, in our view, failed to see the extent of its jurisdiction, which it possess to exercise while examining the legality of any FIR complaining commission of several cognizable offences by accused persons. In order to examine as to whether the factual contents of the FIR disclose any prima facie cognizable offences or not, the High Court cannot act like an investigating agency and nor can exercise the powers like an appellate Court. The question, in our opinion, was required to be examined keeping in view the contents of the FIR and prima facie material, if any, requiring no proof. 31) At this stage, the High Court could not appreciate the evidence nor could draw its own inferences from the contents of the FIR and the material relied on. It was more so when the material relied on was disputed by the complainants and vice-versa. In such a situation, it becomes the job of the investigating authority at such stage to probe and then of the Court to examine the questions once the charge sheet is filed along with such material as to how far and to what extent reliance can be placed on such material. 32) In our considered opinion, once the Court finds that the FIR does disclose prima facie commission of any cognizable offence, it should stay its hand and allow the investigating machinery to step in to initiate the probe to unearth the crime in accordance with the procedure prescribed in the Code. 8. From the aforesaid observations of the Supreme Court, it is clear that so far as the factual contents of FIR are concerned, the High Court cannot go into the veracity of the same, nor can it draw its own inference from the contents of the FIR and the material relied on. 9. In the instant case, the petitioners desire this Court to examine their allegation of their previous enmity with respondent No.2. 9. In the instant case, the petitioners desire this Court to examine their allegation of their previous enmity with respondent No.2. It has been repeatedly argued by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the subject FIR is the consequence of enmity of petitioners with respondent No.2 who wanted to blackmail them. According to the learned counsel, the petitioners have in their possession material to show all this. All these allegations and counter allegations as also the material in support thereof cannot be examined by this Court while exercising its jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. This Court cannot be expected to undertake the job of an investigating agency in these proceedings. Even otherwise, the Supreme Court in the case of State of Orissa and another vs. Saroj Kumar Sahoo, 2005 8 Supreme 464 , has clearly stated that the allegations of mala fides against the informant are of no consequence and cannot by themselves be the basis for quashing the proceedings. The Court has gone on to state that when an information is lodged at the Police Station and an offence is registered, then, the mala fides of the informant would be of secondary importance. 10. Apart from the above, the status report filed by respondent No.1 before this Court indicates that the Markseet on the basis of which petitioner No.1 had got the job of ReT Teacher has been found to be fictitious. In fact, there is no denial to the said fact even in the petition filed by the petitioners. The status report goes on to state that the report of FSL would show that petitioner No.1 had prepared/signed the recommendations i.e. tentative panel and zonal/panchayat/village level merit panel of the candidates for the engagement of ReT Teacher under SSA at his own level. 11. In the face of aforesaid material collected during the course of the investigation, it cannot be stated that the allegation made in the FIR and material in support thereof does not disclose any offence against the petitioner. In fact, the material collected by the investigating agency during the investigation of the case suggests otherwise. Thus, there is no reason or justification for quashing the criminal proceedings against the petitioners. 12. For the foregoing reasons, I do not find any merit in this petition. The same along with connected application is dismissed. The interim order, if any, shall stand vacated.