Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 416 (UTT)

Balwant Singh v. State of Uttarakhand

2024-06-14

RAKESH THAPLIYAL

body2024
JUDGMENT : Rakesh Thapliyal, J. 1. By the present Application, preferred under Section 482 CrPC, the applicant is challenging the order dated 21.09.2023, passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Jaspur, District Udham Singh Nagar, whereby Miscellaneous Criminal Application No. 106 of 2023, Balwant Singh Vs. Smt. Jasveer Kaur and others, preferred under Section 156(3) CrPC, was rejected. In addition to this, the applicant is also challenging the order dated 12.04.2024, passed by the IInd Additional Sessions Judge, Kashipur, District Udham Singh Nagar, dismissing the Criminal Revision of the applicant, bearing Criminal Revision No. 254 of 2023, whereby the Criminal Revision preferred by the present applicant against the order dated 21.09.2023, was also rejected. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the present applicant is the permanent resident of village Patampur of Tehsil Jaspur, District Udham Singh Nagar and is a voter of village Panchayat Patrampur. Respondent No. 2 herein is also the resident of the same village, who contested the election of village pradhan of village Panchayat Patrampur, which was held in the year 2019 and she was declared to be elected as “village pradhan”. 3. It is contended by the learned counsel for the applicant that as per the Rules, the candidate who wants to contest the election for the post of village pradhan, must possess the educational qualification of having passed 8th class. It is submitted that at the time of nomination for election of village pradhan, the respondent No. 2 submitted a transfer certificate of an institution namely, Morning Star Senior Secondary School, Patti District Tarantaran, Punjab, with regard to her educational qualification, wherein she has shown to be studying up till 31.03.2000. 4. The said transfer certificate mentioned that the respondent passed 8th class from the said Institution, the copy of transfer certificate is enclosed as Annexure 1 to the affidavit. In para 6 of the affidavit of the present C482 Application, it is contended that the applicant had strong doubt that respondent No. 2 have not passed 8th class and subsequently he gathered certain information under the Right to Information Act and then he came to know that the school, wherefrom the respondent No. 2 passed 8th class was not in existence. The RTI information is also enclosed as Annexure-2 and by the said certificate, the learned counsel for the applicant submits that the aforesaid information clearly establishes that respondent No. 2 never studied in Morning Star Senior Secondary School. 5. It is contended in para 8 of the affidavit of the present C482 Application that the applicant also preferred an Election Petition before the Prescribed Authority/Assistant Collector 1st Class/SDM, Jaspur, District Udham Singh Nagar with this contention that respondent No. 2 was not eligible to contest the election of village pradhan since she does not possess essential educational qualification of 8th class. 6. The Election Petition, preferred by the applicant was registered as Election Petition No. 07 of 2019, Balwant Singh Vs. Jasveer Kaur and Others and the Prescribed Authority dismissed the election petition by order dated 20.05.2023 with the conclusion that the burden of proof lies upon the applicant, which the applicant failed to prove it and at the time of filing of nomination, during election, the present applicant has not raised any objection regarding education certificate of respondent No. 2 and the election petition is barred by the doctrine of estoppel. 7. Subsequently, when the applicant could not succeed in the election petition, a complaint was made to the SHO, Jaspur as well as to SSP, Udham Singh Nagar for lodging of First Information Report and when no action was taken by these authorities, application under Section 156(3) of CrPC was moved by the applicant before the Judicial Magistrate, Jaspur, District Udham Singh Nagar, which was registered as Miscellaneous Criminal Case No. 106 of 2023 which was dismissed by the Judicial Magistrate, by order dated 21.09.2023 by observing therein that since with the same facts and grounds, the present applicant preferred the election petition which was dismissed by the Prescribed Authority and the issue pertains to the election disputes and hence the application cannot be entertained. 8. Feeling aggrieved with the order dated 21.09.2023, passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Jaspur, rejecting the application of the applicant under Section 156(3) of CrPC, a Criminal Revision No. 254 of 2023 was preferred before the IInd Additional Sessions Judge, Kashipur, District Udham Singh Nagar; however, the said revision was also dismissed on 12.04.2024. Being aggrieved with the same, now the present C482 Application has been preferred. 9. Being aggrieved with the same, now the present C482 Application has been preferred. 9. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the dismissal of election petition have no bearing with the allegations as alleged in the application preferred under Section 156(3) of CrPC. He submits that the allegation as alleged was in respect of the fraud committed by respondent No. 2 while filing her nomination to contest the election and therefore this is a case in which thorough investigation should be carried out, and when on the complaint of the applicant no FIR was registered then an application was moved under Section 156(3) of CrPC, and the same was rejected in a cursory manner, merely on the ground that the election petition preferred by the present applicant was dismissed by the Prescribed Authority. 10. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the Judicial Magistrate had not applied his judicious mind while dismissing the application moved under Section 156(3) of CrPC and committed a gross error of law in rejecting the same, despite the fact that there are sufficient evidences for registration of the FIR. 11. Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that in the election petition, only a declaration was sought that the election of respondent No. 2 be declared “null and void”, since she has contested the election on the basis of forged document and the application moved under Section 156(3) CrPC is only for the purposes of penalising the respondent Nos. 2 and 3, who used forged documents in order to contest the election. 12. He further submits that rejection of the election petition does not create any bar in moving an application under Section 156(3) of CrPC and the application was rejected illegally, without examining seriousness of the allegations. 13. Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that the Revisional Court also failed to appreciate the documents and the evidence available on record and committed illegality and misinterpreted the testimony of the evidence available on record and hence the order of the Revisional Court is also not sustainable in the eyes of law. 14. 13. Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that the Revisional Court also failed to appreciate the documents and the evidence available on record and committed illegality and misinterpreted the testimony of the evidence available on record and hence the order of the Revisional Court is also not sustainable in the eyes of law. 14. Undisputedly, with the same set of allegations which the applicant has alleged in the application moved under Section 156(3) of CrPC, the present applicant preferred the election petition and the election petition was dismissed by the Prescribed Authority, by observing that at the time of nomination, the present applicant has not raised any objection and it was admitted by the applicant in the election petition. In response to this, it is contended that since the applicant could not get the relevant document, therefore he could not submit his objection at the time of scrutiny of nomination and after completing the entire election process, the objection was raised and this fact clearly reveals that during the entire election process, the applicant had never raised any objection. 15. The learned Judicial Magistrate, while rejecting the application preferred under Section 156(3) of CrPC observed that the allegations are nothing but in respect of the election which was held in the year 2019. The learned Judicial Magistrate also examined the report submitted by the concerned police station and after perusing the same, the application was rejected. 16. No doubt, the application preferred under Section 156(3) of CrPC is admittedly in respect of an election which was held in the year 2019 and with same set of allegation the election petition was filed, which was dealt with by a well reasoned order by the Prescribed Authority, therefore, this Court is of the view that the learned Judicial Magistrate rightly dismissed the application preferred under Section 156(3) of CrPC. 17. This Court also perused the order passed by the Revisional Court, whereby the revision of the applicant was also rejected by affirming the order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate dated 21.09.2023, whereby the application under Section 156(3) of CrPC was rejected and the Revisional Court also examined all the aspects thoroughly and the judgment as relied upon by the revisionist were also taken into consideration. It appears that only for political purposes the present applicant moved application under Section 156(3) CrPC and as such the application was rightly dismissed. 18. It appears that only for political purposes the present applicant moved application under Section 156(3) CrPC and as such the application was rightly dismissed. 18. In view of the reasons as recorded above, I do not find any merit in the present C482 Application and the same is, accordingly, dismissed.