ORDER : 1. This criminal miscellaneous petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing the FIR No. 31/2020 dated 21.02.2020 lodged at Police Station Kaprain, District Bundi for the offences under Sections 420, 467 and 468 of IPC. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the only allegation in the FIR is of furnishing false information in the nomination paper submitted by him with the Returning Officer for contesting election for the post of Sarpanch, Grampanchayat-Roteda. Relying on the judgments of this Court in cases of Balbir Singh versus State of Rajasthan reported in 2016 (4) Cr. L.R. (Raj.) 1824, Nijnam Meena vs. State of Rajasthan, SB Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No. 3376/2017 decided on 27.10.2017, learned counsel submitted that since the submission of false information with the Returning Officer, i.e. a public servant, is specifically covered under Section 177 IPC for which prosecution can be launched by the concerned public servant only in terms of Section 195(1)(a) IPC and hence, no FIR is maintainable. 3. Per contra, opposing the prayer, learned Public Prosecutor assisted by learned counsel for the complainant submitted that in the FIR itself there are specific allegations against the petitioner of not only submitting false affidavit for contesting election; but, also of forging and fabricating documents such as Ration Card, Bhamashah Card and documents to show fake date of birth of his son Shankar Singh that too concealing his identity. They contended that since the FIR discloses commission of cognizable offence, the same cannot be quashed by this Court under its extraordinary jurisdiction. They, therefore, submitted that the controversy is not covered by judgments of this Court in cases of Balbir Singh (supra) & Nijnam Meena (supra) wherein the only allegation was of furnishing false information to the Returning Officer. 4. Heard learned counsels for the parties and perused the record. 5. The contents of the FIR reveal that the allegation against the petitioner is not only of submitting false information on oath with the Returning Officer; but of creating false and fabricated documents also. A perusal of the case diary reveals that there is prima-facie material available therein to substantiate the allegation levelled in the FIR. In these circumstances, judgments of this Court in cases of Balbir Singh (supra) and Nijnam Meena (supra) are of no assistance to him since the FIR in question discloses commission of cognizable offences also. 6. A perusal of the case diary reveals that there is prima-facie material available therein to substantiate the allegation levelled in the FIR. In these circumstances, judgments of this Court in cases of Balbir Singh (supra) and Nijnam Meena (supra) are of no assistance to him since the FIR in question discloses commission of cognizable offences also. 6. The Hon’ble Apex Court of India in case of State of Andhra Pradesh vs. Bajjoori Kanthaiah and Others, AIR 2009 SCC 671 , held as under:- “8. As noted above, the powers possessed by the High Court under Section 482 of the Code are very wide and the very plenitude of the power requires great caution in its exercise. Court must be careful to see that its decision in exercise of this power is based on sound principles. The inherent power should not be exercised to stifle a legitimate prosecution. High Court being the highest Court of a State should normally refrain from giving a prima facie decision in a case where the entire facts are incomplete and hazy, more so when the evidence has not been collected and produced before the Court and the issues involved, whether factual or legal, are of magnitude and cannot be seen in their true perspective without sufficient material. Of course, no hard and fast rule can be laid down in regard to cases in which the High Court will exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction of quashing the proceeding at any stage. [See: The Janata Dal vs. H.S. Chowdhary and Others, AIR 1993 SC 892 and Dr. Raghubir Saran vs. State of Bihar and Another, AIR 1964 SC 1 ]. It would not be proper for the High Court to analyse the case of the complainant in the light of all probabilities in order to determine whether a conviction would be sustainable and on such premises, arrive at a conclusion that the proceedings are to be quashed. It would be erroneous to assess the material before it and conclude that the complaint cannot be proceeded with. In proceeding instituted on complaint, exercise of the inherent powers to quash the proceedings is called for only in a case where the complaint does not disclose any offence or is frivolous, vexatious or oppressive. It would be erroneous to assess the material before it and conclude that the complaint cannot be proceeded with. In proceeding instituted on complaint, exercise of the inherent powers to quash the proceedings is called for only in a case where the complaint does not disclose any offence or is frivolous, vexatious or oppressive. If the allegations set out in the complaint do not constitute the offence of which cognizance has been taken by the Magistrate, it is open to the High Court to quash the same in exercise of the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code. It is not, however, necessary that there should be meticulous analysis of the case before the trial to find out whether the case would end in conviction or acquittal. The complaint/F.I.R. has to be read as a whole. If it appears that on consideration of the allegations in the light of the statement made on oath of the complainant or disclosed in the F.I.R. that the ingredients of the offence or offences are disclosed and there is no material to show that the complaint/F.I.R. is mala-fide, frivolous or vexatious, in that event there would be no justification for interference by the High Court. 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. It is the material collected during the investigation and evidence led in Court which decides the fate of the accused person. The allegations of mala-fides against the informant are of no consequence and cannot by itself be the basis for quashing the proceeding. [See: Mrs. Dhanalakshmi vs. R. Prasanna Kumar and Others, AIR 1990 SC 494 , State of Bihar and Another vs. P.P. Sharma, I.A.S. and Another, 1992 Supp. (1) SCC 222, Rupan Deol Bajaj and Another vs. Kanwar Pal Singh Gill and Another, 1995 (6) SCC 194 , State of Kerala and Others vs. O.C. Kuttan and Others, 1999 (2) SCC 651 , State of U.P. vs. O.P. Sharma, 1996 (7) SCC 705 , Smt. Rashmi Kumar vs. Mahesh Kumar Bhada, 1997 (2) SCC 397 , Satvinder Kaur vs. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) and Another, 1999 (8) SCC 728 , Rajesh Bajaj vs. State NCT of Delhi and Others, AIR 1999 SC 1216 and State of Karnataka vs. M. Devendrappa and Another, 2002 (3) SCC 89 ].” 7. of NCT of Delhi) and Another, 1999 (8) SCC 728 , Rajesh Bajaj vs. State NCT of Delhi and Others, AIR 1999 SC 1216 and State of Karnataka vs. M. Devendrappa and Another, 2002 (3) SCC 89 ].” 7. The Hon’ble Apex Court of India in case of Dr. Monica Kumar vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 2008 SCC 2781, held as under:- “30. We may reiterate and emphasise that the powers possessed by the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. are very wide and the very plenitude of the power requires great caution in its exercise. Court must be careful to see that its decision in exercise of this power is based on sound principles. The inherent power should not be exercised to stifle a legitimate prosecution. The High Court being the highest court of a State should normally refrain from giving a prima facie decision in a case where the entire facts are incomplete and hazy, more so when the evidence has not been collected and produced before the Court and the issues involved, whether factual or legal, are of magnitude and cannot be seen in their true perspective without sufficient material. Of course, no hard and fast rule can be laid down in regard to cases in which the High Court will exercise its jurisdiction of quashing the proceeding at any stage. [See Janata Dal vs. H.S. Chowdhury, (1992) 4 SCC 305 , Dr. Raghubir Saran vs. State of Bihar, 1964 (2) SCR 336 , Kurukshetra University vs. State of Haryana, (1977) 4 SCC 451 and Zhandu Pharmaceuticals Works Limited and Others vs. Mohd. Sharaful Haque and Another, 2005 (1) SCC 122 ]. 8. Since, reading of the FIR in question in its entirety discloses commission of cognizable offences also beside offence under Chapter X of IPC, the same cannot be quashed applying the ratio of the judgments of this Court in the cases of Balbir Singh (supra) and Nijnam Meena (supra). 9. Resultantly, this criminal miscellaneous petition is dismissed being devoid of merit.