Ruby Khatoon vs State Of Uttarakhand And Another

R.C. Khulbe, J

This criminal miscellaneous application has been filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. for quashing the charge sheet no.148A/2017 dated 12.12.2017 and summoning order dated 08.01.2018 along with entire proceedings of Criminal Case No.09 of 2018, State Vs. Ruby Khatoon, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 & 120B IPC, pending before Civil Judge (Jr. Div.)/ Judicial Magistrate, Kashipur, District-Udham Singh Nagar.

Crux of the matter is that, in compliance of order dated 13.11.2016 passed by S.D.M. Jaspur regarding lodging FIR against the officials allegedly responsible for cutting and overwriting in the report of Patwari and Tehsildar relating to caste and permanent resident certificates of Ruby Khatoon D/ o Mohd. Ashiq, Mahender Singh Bisht, Tehsildar, Jaspur set up a team of Chhatrapal Singh, Revenue Inspector, Bhagwan Das Gupta, Revenue Inspector, Suryapal Singh, Revenue Sub-Inspector and Phool Singh, Revenue Sub-Inspector for inquiry in to the matter.

On the basis of the report of the aforesaid inquiry team, correction and overwriting was found in the documents pertaining to certificates of Ruby Khatoon. Column no.08 and 09 of the verification report were erased by scratching on it and the verification report was also not bearing the signatures of Patwari and Revenue Inspector on it. Entry, in column no.6 of the affidavit enclosed with the permanent resident certificate, had been erased by cutting with black pen. The documents annexed with the caste and permanent resident certificate of Ruby Khatoon were found to be tampered. It appeared that this was done for favouring someone. Involvement of officials from Tehsil Office and S.D.M Office had been found in tampering, cutting and overwriting on the documents annexed with certificates of Ruby Khatoon. As per the report of the inquiry team, Sanjeev Kumar Chauhan, the then E-District In-charge (presently posted at District Office, Udham Singh Nagar), the then Peshkar-Vikas Kumar Chauhan and Pankaj Kumar Chauhan were found to be guilty. Accordingly, an FIR was lodged, against Sanjeev Kumar, Vikas Kumar Chauhan and Pankaj Chauhan at P.S. Jaspur, Udham Singh Nagar and investigation was conducted.

After investigation, charge sheet was submitted on 12.12.2019 under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 &120B IPC against the present applicant- Ruby Khatoon. After submission of charge sheet, cognizance was taken on 08.01.2018 by Civil Judge (Jr. Divn.)/Judicial Magistrate, Kashipur. Aggrieved by it, the present criminal misc. application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing the summoning order dated 08.01.2018 as well as entire proceedings of Criminal Case No.09 of 2018, State Vs. Ruby Khatoon, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 & 120B IPC, pending before Civil Judge (Jr. Div.)/ Judicial Magistrate, Kashipur, District-Udham Singh Nagar.

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the entire material brought on record.

It is argued by learned counsel for the applicant that a false FIR was lodged against the present applicant while there is no evidence on record to summon the accused under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 & 120B IPC and no offence is made out against her. It is also argued that some person made a complaint against the applicant with the allegation that the applicant has fraudulently obtained caste certificate from the State of Uttarakhand and consequently the matter was referred to District Scrutiny Committee. She filed a Writ Petition (M/S) No. 2991 of 2016 challenging the proceedings of scrutiny committee before the High Court in which the core issue was whether the applicants belongs to "Momin Ansaar" or not and it was observed that the petitioner is a member of "Momin Ansar" and she would also be considered as a permanent resident of Uttarakhand. Again the applicant filed another Writ Petition (M/S) No.465 of 2019, "Ruby Khatoon Vs. State of Uttarakhand and others" in which a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court observed that the Court has already declared that the petitioner belongs to "Momin Ansaar" community and accordingly, permanent resident and OBC certificates were granted to the petitioner by the State of Uttarakhand.

As regards the manipulation in the revenue record is concerned, before filing the FIR an Inquiry Committee comprising of the revenue officers was set up. The Inquiry Committee found that the revenue authority had committed offence in the matter and accordingly, charge sheet against Sanjeev Kumar, Vikas Kumar Chauhan and Pankaj Chauhan has been submitted. Since, the High Court has declared in the Writ Petition (M/S) No. 2991 of 2016 and Writ Petition (M/S) No.465 of 2019, "Ruby Khatoon Vs. State of Uttarakhand and others" that the applicant belongs to Momin Ansaar community and accordingly OBC certificate and permanent resident certificates were issued in favour of the applicant by the State and these orders were not challenged by anyone, hence, there was no occasion for the applicant to prepare the forged documents.

It is well settled that exercise of powers under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. is the exception and not the rule. Under this section, the High Court has inherent powers to make such orders as may be necessary to give effect to any order under the Code or to prevent the abuse of process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. But the expressions "abuse of process of law" or "to secure the ends of justice" do not confer unlimited jurisdiction on the High Court and the alleged abuse of process of law or the ends of justice could only be secured in accordance with law, including procedural law and not otherwise.

The Hon'ble Apex Court in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335, has elaborately considered the scope and ambit of Section 482 Cr.P.C. Seven categories of cases have been enumerated where power can be exercised under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. Para 102 thus reads:

"102. In the backdrop of the interpretation of the various relevant provisions of the Code under Chapter XIV and of the principles of law enunciated by this Court in a series of decisions relating to the exercise of the extraordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code which we have extracted and reproduced above, we give the following categories of cases by way of illustration wherein such power could be exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently channelised and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised.

(1) Where the allegations made in the first information report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused.

(2) Where the allegations in the first information report and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code.

(3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused.

(4) Where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code.

(5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused.

(6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party.

(7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge."

From the record, it is clear that the applicant did not get any forged documents from the Government nor prepared and submitted any forged document before the revenue authority for getting the benefits of OBC Certificate. The Inquiry Committee did not find any material against the present applicant. There is no evidence on record, which shows that the present applicant submitted any false document or made any cutting or changes in the documents submitted before the revenue authority. In the Writ Petition (M/S) No. 2991 of 2016 and Writ Petition (M/S) No.465 of 2019, "Ruby Khatoon Vs. State of Uttarakhand and others" the Court has already held that the applicant belongs to "Momin Ansaar" community and accordingly State authorities has issued the caste and permanent resident certificates in favour of her. The learned Magistrate did not duly peruse the Inquiry Report submitted by the I.O. while there is no evidence on record to summon the applicant under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 & 120B IPC.

In these circumstances, the present criminal misc. application filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is liable to be allowed and accordingly, the same is allowed. Consequently, the charge sheet no.148A/2017 dated 12.12.2017 and summoning order dated 08.01.2018 along with entire proceedings of Criminal Case No.09 of 2018, State Vs. Ruby Khatoon, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 & 120B IPC, pending before Civil Judge (Jr. Div.)/ Judicial Magistrate, Kashipur, District-Udham Singh Nagar is hereby quashed qua the present applicant only.

However, it is made clear that the learned Magistrate will proceed with the case against the other accused, as per law.