Pemaram vs State of Rajasthan

Vijay Bishnoi, J.—This criminal misc. petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioner with a prayer for quashing the FIR No. 81/2015 dated 20.2.2015 registered at Police Station Kotwali, Pali for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B I.P.C.

Brief facts of the case are that the respondent No. 2 has filed a complaint in the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pali stating that in the General Panchayat Elections 2015, declared by the Government, the required qualification for contesting the election for the Member of Zila Parishad is 10th pass. It is alleged that the petitioner filed his nomination form from Ward No. 27 of Zila Parishad, Pali and along with nomination form, he submitted his marksheet of High School Examination 2001 said to have been issued by the Government Queens Inter College, Varanasi declaring that the petitioner has passed his high school examination in first division. It is contended that during the course of scrutiny of the nomination papers, objections were raised regarding education qualification of the petitioner, but the Returning Officer i.e. the District Collector, Pali has rejected those objections on the ground that persons, who have raised objections regarding education qualification of the petitioner, have not furnished any proof and, therefore, the objections raised by them cannot be sustained. It is contended that the Returning Officer has directed the District Education Officer to investigate regarding the genuineness of high school certificate submitted by the petitioner. It is alleged that despite the directions issued by the Returning Officer, no enquiry has been conducted by the District Education Officer then the respondent No. 2 has sought information from the Secretary of the Secondary Education Council, Regional Office, Varanasi regarding the high school certificate submitted by the petitioner along with his nomination form and the above authority, in response, has informed the respondent No. 2 that no such high school certificate has ever been issued in the name of the petitioner. It is alleged in the complaint that the high school certificate and the marksheet submitted by the petitioner along with his nomination form for contesting the election for Member of Zila Parishad, Pali from Ward No. 27 is forged and the petitioner has used the said forged document as genuine, therefore, action be taken against him. The complaint filed by the respondent No. 2 before the learned Magistrate was forwarded to the Police Station, Kotwali, Pali and the police in turn registered the FIR No. 81/2015 dated 20.2.2015 for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 468, 471 and 120-B I.P.C. wherein investigation is pending.

Mr. Mahesh Bora, learned Senior Advocate, while challenging the impugned FIR, has argued that from bare perusal of the FIR, no cognizable offence is made out against the petitioner and, therefore, the impugned FIR is liable to be quashed. It is also submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the impugned FIR, lodged at the instance of respondent No. 2, is not maintainable solely for the reason that the alleged forged high school certificate was submitted by the petitioner before the returning officer i.e. District Collector, Pali and only the District Collector, Pali can make such complaint as per the provisions of Section 195 Cr.P.C. It is also contended that even if it is assumed that the allegations levelled in the FIR are true, then also, at the most, an offence punishable under Section 465 I.P.C. is only made out against the petitioner, which is non-cognizable offence and, therefore, the impugned FIR is not sustainable.

On the strength of above arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner has prayed for quashing of the impugned FIR.

Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor as well as the learned counsel for the respondent No. 2 have argued that from bare reading of the allegations levelled in the FIR, prima facie case is made out against the petitioner and, therefore, the FIR cannot be quashed while exercising powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

Heard learned counsel for the rival parties and perused the impugned FIR.

The principal allegation against the petitioner in the FIR is that he produced a forged marksheet and high school certificate along with his nomination form to enable him to contest election of Member of Zila Parishad, Pali. The complainant has also furnished the information received by him from the authority, which has declared that no such high school certificate has ever been issued in the name of the petitioner. The complainant has also alleged in the impugned FIR that the petitioner has used the forged document as genuine while submitting his nomination form for contesting the election.

After going through the contents of the impugned FIR, this Court is of the opinion that the argument of learned Public Prosecutor as well as learned counsel for the complainant that prima facie case of cognizable offence is made out against the petitioner has force. Whether the high school certificate submitted by the petitioner is forged one or the information furnished by the complainant declaring the said high school certificate as forged is correct or not, is a matter of investigation and the police is required to investigate into the same.

So far as the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the respondent No. 2 has no authority to register the impugned FIR against the petitioner and only the Returning Officer i.e. the District Collector, Pali is competent to make such complaint as per the provisions of Section 195 Cr.P.C. is concerned, the same has no merit because there is no allegation against the petitioner to the effect that he has committed any offence in relation to any proceedings in any court. The marksheet or the high school certificate, alleged to have been forged, has not been produced in any Court. Therefore, the provisions of Section 195(1)(b)(ii) I.P.C. has no application. The petitioner is also not alleged to have committed any offence punishable under Sections 172 to 188 (both inclusive) of I.P.C., hence, there is no requirement of making a complaint against the petitioner in writing by the public servant.

As per Section 154 Cr.P.C., it is mandatory for the police to register an FIR as and when they receive the complaint regarding cognizable offence. The Hon''ble Supreme Court in Lalita Kumari Vs. Govt. of U.P. and Others, has specifically laid down that the registration of FIR is mandatory under Section 154 of C.P.C., if the information discloses commission of a cognizable offence and no preliminary enquiry is permissible in such situation.

Keeping in view the law laid down by the Hon''ble Supreme Court in Lalita Kumari''s case (supra) and in the facts and circumstances of the present case, this Court does not find any merit in this criminal misc. petition. The same is hereby dismissed. The stay petition is also dismissed.