Ravinder Singh vs State of U.P. and Another

M.K. Mittal, J.—Application u/s 482, Cr. P.C. has been filed for quashing the charge-sheet and the proceedings in (Crime No. 145 of 1999) State v. Ravindra Singh, Criminal Case No. 1509 of 2000 pending in the court of C.J.M., Muzaffarnagar.

Brief facts of the case are that opposite party No. 2 filed a first information report against the applicant alleging that he was working as principal in Amrit Inter College, Rehana, Muzaffarnagar and the accused-applicant-Ravinder Singh was selected for the post of Principal. In this connection, a letter was also issued by the D.I.O.S. on 21.7.1999. Accused presented letter as well as his certificate before the management. Amongst these papers he also produced the degree of Bachelor of Education issued by Bhawan College, Bihar and the name of the university was Baba Saheb Ambedkar University, Muzaffarpur, Bihar. There were no roll number or enrolment number on the degree and being suspicious accused was directed to explain the things. Then he told that the enrolment number was 11967 of 1977. A letter was sent to the Registrar Muzaffarpur University, One Bhagwat Rai was also sent to verify the facts. The Deputy Registrar gave a report that one Vimal Kumar Prasad Singh was enrolled at No. 11967 of 1997 B. Ed. examination and not Ravinder Singh. Accused filed a forged degree in order to obtain the appointment as Principal and therefore the report was lodged. After investigation charge-sheet was submitted against the accused and the learned Magistrate took cognizance. Feeling aggrieved this application has been filed.

Applicant has contended that he possesses requisite qualification and had applied for selection for the post of Principal Amrit Inter College, Rehana, Muzaffarnagar and was also included in the list prepared on 15.4.1997. The informant being officiating principal challenged the selection on the ground of vires of rules of selection as also on the ground that he did not possess B. Ed. qualification in Writ Petition No. 18350 of 1997. Several other writ petitions were also filed. However, they were decided by a common judgment and the vires was upheld and the writ petitions were dismissed. But in the matter of the applicant it was directed that Deputy Director/ Director of Education shall decide the question of qualification as raised. But the Director did not decide the question and a Writ Petition No. 3858 of 1999 was filed which was disposed by order dated 11.2.1999 directing the Director to decide the representation of the opposite party. One Ashok Kumar also filed a civil misc. writ petition which was numbered as 29866 of 1999 and in that matter Director was again directed by order dated 22.7.1999 to decide the matter. Thereafter, Director of Education finding that the B. Ed. certificate was genuine directed the Inspector of Schools to allow the applicant to join as Principal. However, this order of the Director was not implemented and the applicant filed a Writ Petition No. 3035 of 2000 and a direction was issued to ensure compliance. According to the applicant when the opposite party could not get any relief in the writ petition he filed the first information report with wrong facts as no case is made out against him.

In this matter opposite party filed a counter-affidavit and contended that the applicant does not possess the B. Ed. degree and the certificate filed by him is forged document. The registration number as disclosed by the applicant was in the name of Vimal Kumar Prasad Singh and the Assistant Registrar of the University Muzaffarpur had informed vide letter dated 27.3.2000 that the name of the applicant-Ravinder Singh was not recorded in the registration record as a student of the college concerned. Before lodging of the first information report a letter was sent to the Registrar for verification of the fact. Director of Education did not decide the genuineness of the certificate of the applicant and on the contrary he issued a direction that applicant may be permitted to join as Principal of the college and in the meantime he left it open to the Principal of the college to produce the relevant records showing the genuineness of the degree and in this manner Director of Education did not comply with the direction of this Court. University issued several letters to the Investigating Officer and Superintendent of Police, Muzaffarnagar that the B. Ed. degree produced by the applicant appears to be manipulated degree and on the said registration number of Vimal Kumar Prasad Singh was mentioned and therefore applicant is prima facie guilty of producing forged and fabricated document to occupy the public office.

Applicant filed rejoinder-affidavit and again contended that B. Ed. Certificate was genuine and there was only mistake regarding the enrolment number and this time he mentioned enrolment No. 21956. He has also contended that the fact that enrolment number in the B. Ed. certificate of the student is of other student will not by itself make B. Ed. certificate forged. University authority corrected the mistake in the enrolment number on 21.8.2000 and changed it to 21956 of 1977.

In the supplementary-affidavit, applicant has contended that the Writ Petition No. 11616 of 2001 filed for quashing the order passed by the board was dismissed on 4.4.2003 and he filed a special appeal No. 256 of 2003 which was also dismissed on 14.11.2003 and then he filed a review application and the special appeal No. 256 of 2003 was again heard and dismissed on 12.12.2005 and as regards the fraud committed by the deponent this Court observed that the question of fraud can be decided in a suit because such a finding can be given only after the evidence is adduced by the parties. Question of the genuineness or otherwise of the B. Ed. degree was not decided by the Division Bench. Photocopy of the judgment has been annexed as paper Annexure-S.A.-1.

I have heard Sri A. K. Shukla, learned Counsel for the applicant Sri Suneet Kumar, learned Counsel for the opposite party No. 2 and learned A.G.A. and have perused the material on record.

Contention of learned Counsel for the applicant is that since civil suit is pending wherein a question of genuineness of the degree in question is to be decided the criminal proceedings are liable to be quashed. In this connection, he has placed reliance on the judgment passed in his special appeal No. 256 of 2003 (S.A.-1).

Against it learned Counsel for the opposite parties have contended that although civil suit is pending but the prima facie case of forgery of giving forged B. Ed. degree is made out against the applicant and the pendency of the civil suit will not and cannot be a ground to quash the criminal proceedings. It will be relevant to refer the observation made in the judgment relied upon by the applicant passed in the special appeal.

In that appeal registers were also requisitioned from Muzaffarpur University and were perused and a reference regarding that has been made in para 11 onwards and the conclusion has been arrived at in para 37 where it has been mentioned that from all these observations, a doubt is cast as to why the register in question containing registration number 21956 has been tampered with. A further doubt is created as to whether the said registration number 21956 is actually that of the Appellant Petitioner or not. It is also not explained as to why and how the registration number of the Appellant Petitioner was changed from 11967 to 21956 as late as on 6.9.2000. It is more than 20 years after the Appellant Petitioner claims to have passed his B. Ed. Examination from the Respondent University.

During examination of these registers, it also came to light that in Registration No. 21956 of 1977 name of Ravinder Singh has been shown who had earlier undergone his education from D.A.V. College and had passed B.A. in second division from Meerut University with Roll Number 662124. This person registered at Number 21956 of 1977 is a different person from the present applicant. Thus, the applicant gave two registration numbers but he is not connected with either of them. In the circumstances prima facie case of forgery is made out against the applicant.

Learned Counsel for the opposite party has contended that even if civil suit has been filed criminal proceedings cannot be quashed and in this connection, he placed reliance on the case of M. Krishnan v. Vijay Singh (2001) 8 SCC 645 : 2001 (3) ACR 2740 (SC). In this case it has been held in para 5 that accepting such a general proposition would be against the provisions of law inasmuch as in all cases of cheating and fraud, in the whole transaction, there is generally some element of civil nature. However, in this case, the allegations were regarding the forging of the documents and acquiring gains on the basis of such forged documents. The proceedings couldn''t be quashed only because the Respondents had filed a civil suit with respect to the aforesaid documents. In a criminal court the allegations made in the complaint have to be established independently, notwithstanding the adjudication by a civil court. Had the complainant failed to prove the allegations made by him in the complaint, the Respondents were entitled to discharge or acquittal but not otherwise. If mere pendency of a suit is made a ground for quashing the criminal proceedings, the unscrupulous litigants, apprehending criminal action against them, would be encouraged to frustrate the course of justice and law by filing suits with respect to the documents intended to be used against them after the initiation of criminal proceedings or in anticipation of such proceedings. Such a course cannot be the mandate of law. Civil proceedings, as distinguished from the criminal action, have to be adjudicated and concluded by adopting separate yardsticks. The onus of proving allegations beyond reasonable doubt, in a criminal case is not applicable in the civil proceedings, which can be decided merely on the basis of the probabilities with respect to the acts complained of.

Learned Counsel for the opposite party also referred the case of Indian Oil Corporation Vs. NEPC India Ltd. and Others, where it has been held that as the nature and scope of a civil proceeding are different from a criminal proceeding, the mere fact that the complaint relates to a commercial transaction or breach of contract, for which a civil remedy is available or has been availed, is not by itself a ground to quash the criminal proceedings. The test is whether the allegations in the complaint disclose a criminal offence or not.

Learned Counsel for the applicant has cited the case of Fakir Chandra Mahrotra v. State of U.P. and Anr. (XXXV)1997 ACC 612 : 1998 (1) ACR 91. In that case it was held that when the Court feels that basically a civil liability has been dragged into the arena of a criminal litigation and that would be certainly an abuse of the process of the Court, the inherent powers u/s 482, Cr. P.C. can be invoked. But in the present case, facts are entirely different and this ruling does not help the applicant.

In the circumstances of the case, allegations as made in the first information report and the facts as have come on record particularly as mentioned in the judgment in special appeal relied upon by the applicant, prima facie criminal offence is made out against the accused-applicant. The complainant claims that the B. Ed. degree of the accused applicant is a forged document whereas according to the applicant-accused it is a genuine document. This fact can be decided by the trial court on the basis of the evidence that may be produced by the parties in support of their contentions.

In the circumstances, I do not find any ground to quash the criminal proceedings of the case noted above and the application is devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed.