Dismissed

Neeraj Kanwar v. State and Anr.

Rajasthan HC11 Apr 2018CRLMP/4576/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Referred two criminal miscellaneous petitions for quashing an FIR alleging cheating and forgery by petitioners in obtaining reserved category benefits. The court held that the allegations prima facie made out a cognizable offence, dismissed the petitions, and found no merit to entertain a second petition.

What did the court decide?

The criminal miscellaneous petitions filed by Kishan Singh Panwar, Mag Singh, and Neeraj Kanwar were dismissed as not having any merit.

Neeraj Kanwar Vs State and Anr. — Cheating and Forgery | Rajasthan HC (2018)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶2

S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 172 / 2018

¶3

Kishan Singh Panwar S/o Shri Devi Singh, Aged About 62 Years, By Caste Panwar Rajput, R/o Sector 23, Chopasani Housing Board, Jodhpur.

¶4

Mag Singh S/o Sh. Achal Singh, By Caste Rajpurohit, R/o Village Chadwas, Tehsil Sojat District Pali, At Present Working As School Lecturer, Government Sr. Sec. School, Siwanchi Gate, Jodhpur. ----Petitioners Versus 1. State of Rajasthan 2. Shri Babulal S/o Bhiyaram, By Caste Jat R/o Gangana, Panchayat Samiti Luni, District Jodhpur. ----Respondents Connected With

¶5

S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 4576 / 2017

¶6

Neeraj Kanwar W/o Shri Kuldeep Singh D/o Sh. Bhawani Singh, Aged About 35 Years, By Caste Parmar Rajput, Resident of Pal, Panchayat Samiti Luni, Dist. Jodhpur, At Present Working As Pradhan, Panchayat Samiti, Luni District Jodhpur.

¶7

----Petitioner Versus 1. State of Rajasthan 2. Shri Babulal S/o Bhiyaram, By Caste Jat Resident of Gangana, Panchayat Samiti Luni District Jodhpur. ----Respondents _____________________________________________________ For Petitioner(s) : Mr Moti Singh For Respondent(s) : Mr V.S.Rajpurohit Mr Dinesh Jain

¶8

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAY BISHNOI

Judgment / Order

(2 of 10)

[CRLMP-172/2018]

11/04/2018

Both these criminal misc. petitions under section 482

¶14

CrPC are filed by the petitioners with the prayer for quashing of FIR No.174/2015 lodged at Police Station Shastri Nagar, District Jodhpur for the offences punishable under sections 420, 465, 467, 468, 471, 472, 474, 476, 196, 198, 200/34 and 120-B IPC.

¶15

The sum and substance of the allegations levelled in the impugned FIR are that petitioner-Neeraj Kanwar, though belonging to Rajput Caste, got issued a forged certificate in her favour about her caste as other backward class for taking illegal benefit of the notification issued by the State Government on 30.09.2013 and on the basis of the said OBC Certificate she contested election and was elected as Member, Panchayat Samiti, Luni for a seat reserved for the OBC category and later on, was elected as Pradhan of Panchayat Samiti, Luni, which was also reserved for OBC category. Allegations regarding cheating and preparation of forged documents have been levelled against Kishan Singh Panwar and Mag Singh (petitioners in S.B.Cr.Misc. Petition No.172/2018) while contending that Kishan Singh Panwar was the Patwari concerned, who has falsely certified that petitioner - Neeraj Kanwar is belonging to OBC category and Mag Singh-petitioner No.2 was the then Senior Teacher of Government Sr. Secondary School, Siwanchi Gate, Jodhpur has wrongly certified the income of father of petitioner - Neeraj Kanwar.

¶16

The relevant portion of the impugned FIR is reproduced hereunder:

¶17

(3 of 10)

¶18

[CRLMP-172/2018]

¶19

"1;g fd jkT; ljdkj }kjk iapk;r jkt laLFkkvksa ds pquko 2015 ds en~nsutj j[krs gq, jktLFkku iapk;rh jkt vf/kfu;e 1994 esa iapk;r jkt la[;kvksa ds lnL;ksa o vU; inks ds fy, vko';d ;ksX;rk bR;kfn esa la'kks/ku djrs gq, iapk;rh jkt pquko 2015 dk;Zdze ?kksf"kr fd;s x;s A ftl vuqlkj iapk;r lfefr yq.kh ds fuokZfpr {ks= 21 ls vU; fiNMk oxZ ds mEehnokj ds :i ls vfHk;qDr la[;k 1 fnukad 30-01-2015 dks voS/k :i ls fuokZfpr ? kksf"kr gqbZ tks ewy :i ls vks-ch-lh- tkfr oxZ esa ugh vkrh gS A

¶20

2- ;g fd jkT; vU; fiNMk vk;ksx t;iqj us jktlean o mn;iqj ftys esa fuokljr ukrjk;r d`"kd jktiwr tkfr dh lkekftd o vkfFkZd ifjfLFkfr;ksa ds en~nsutj jkT; ljdkj ls bl tkfr dks vU; fiNMk oxZ esa lfEefyr djus gsrq i= fnukad 16-052013 dks vuq'ka"kk izasf"kr dh ftl ij mDr nksuks ftyksa esa fuokljr mDr tkfr oxZ [kjoM] pank.kk] ÅBaM]ijekj] dMspk] ryknjk fn;k xqy o n"kk.kk dks jkT; ljdkj us tfj;s vf/klwpuk fnukad 30-09-13 ls vU; fiNM+k oxZ ¼vks-ch-lh-½ esa lfEefyr dj fy;k x;k A

¶21

3- ;g fd eqyfteku la[;k 1 us mDr uksfVfQds'ku fnukad 309-13 dk vuqfpr Qk;nk ysus ds vk'k; ls vU; eqyftekuksa ls fefyHkDr dj vius tkfr mioxZ dqEHkkor ds LFkku ij ijekj crkdj vuqfpr o csbZekuh iwoZd Qk;nk izkIr djus dh fu;r ls vksch-lh- izek.k i= gsrq vkosnu i= eqyfteku la[;k 7 ds dk;kZy; esa izLrqr fd;k A eqyfteku la[;k 6 us vius in dk nq:i;ksx djrs gq, feF;k vk; izek.k i= tkjh fd;k ftlesa eqyfteku la[;k 5 Hkokuh flag tks fd eqyfteku la[;k1 ds firk gS dks df"k O;olk; esa dk;Zjr gksuk dgdj mldh okf"kZd vk; :i;sa 70]000@& crkbZ tcfd okLro esa eqyfteku la[;k 5 lsokfuor ljdkjh deZpkjh gS rFkk mldh okf"kZd vk;k 70]000@& ls dkQh vf/kd gSA eqyfteku la[;k 2]3] o 4 }kjk feF;k lR;kiu djrs gq, vks-ch-lh- vkosnu esa eqyfteku la[;k 1 dks d`"kd ijekj jktiwr of.kZr djrs gq, viuh lhy yxkrs gq, gLrk{kj fd, tcfd bUgs bl rF; dh iw.kZ Kku o tkudkjh Fkh] fd eqyfteku la[;k1 dk ihgj t;iqj esa gS vkSj mldh ijfo'k eqyfteku la[;k 5 ds {kf=; jktiwr ifjokj tks fd

¶22

(4 of 10)

¶23

CRLMP-172/2018]

¶24

dqEekor tkfr mioxZ esa gS ds tkfxnkj jhfr fjokt vuqlkj gqbZ Fkh A 4- ;g fd eqyfteku la[;k 1 o 5 dk laca/k jktlean o mn;iqj ftys ls dHkh Hkh ugh jgk gS vkSj u gh mlds ifjokj o lekt esa ukrk izFkk] ckyfookg o vf'k{kk fo?keku gSA oLrqr% mDr eqyfteku la[;k 1 o 5 izkpkhu jkt njckjh o tehnkj dkSe ls laca/k j[krs gS vkSj muds ifjokj esa vkfnoklh jhfr fjokt ugh viuk, tkrs gS tks fd eqyfteku la[;k 5 }kjk gky gh Niok;s x;s rhFkZ ;k=k lekiu vk;kstu ds fuea=.k i= ls gh izFken`"V;k yf{kr gksrk gS ftlesa izs"kd dk uke Bkdqj lkfgc Jh eqdanflag dqEHkkor o dqoaj Hkokuhflag vafdr djok;k x;k A

¶25

5- ;g fd ukrjk;r d"kd ¼djlk½ jktiwr ¼[kjoM] pank.kk] ÅBaM] ijekj] dMspk] ryknjk]fn;k xqy o n"kk.kk½ tkfr oxZ jkT; vU; fiNMk vk;ksx dh vuq'ka"kk ij vU; fiNMk oxZ dh lwph esa dzekad 90 ij d"kd ¼djlk½ jktiwr lekt ds :i esa tksMk x;k ysfdu eqyfteku la[;k 1 us vU; eqyfteku ds lkFk vkijkf/kd "kM~;a= jprs gq, jktiwr lekt ds lkFk layXu d"kd 'kCn dk nq:i;ksx djrs gq, viuk vkosnu i= vks-ch-lh- izek.k i= cukus gsrq xyrrjhds ls viuh tkfr dqEHkkor ds LFkku ij d"kd ijekj jktiwr fy[krs gq, izLrqr fd;k A tcfd vfHk;qDr dks iwoZ ls gh Kku Fkk] fd og d`"kd ¼djlk½ jktiwr lekt esa ugh gksdj {kf=; jktiwr lekt ls laca/k j[krh gSA eqyfteku la[;k 5 Hkokuhflag dk fuokl LFkku o py vpy tk;nkn mds mDr irks ij ftyk t;iqj esa vkbZ gqgZ gS rFkk mldk tks/kiqj ftys esa dHkh Hkh fuokl@fBdku ugh jgk ckotwn blds mlus viuh iq=h eqyfteku la[;k 1 dks vos/k ykHk igwpkus dh fu;r ls QthZ 'kiFk i= fnukad 6-01-2015 fu"ikfnr fd;k ftlesa Lo;a dh tkfr dqEHkkor ds LFkku ij ijekj jktiwr crk;k o [kqn dks tks/kiqj fuoklh crkrs gq,] }kjk 70]0000@& vk; ? kksf"kr dh rkfd mldh iq=h vfHk;qDr la[;k 1 dks voS/k :i ls vksch-lh ?ksf"kr djokdj mls yq.kh iapk;r lfefr lnL; vks-ch- lhlnL; ds :i esa fuokZfpr djok lds A eqyfteku la[;k 1 }kjk mDr 'kiFk i= vks-ch-lh- gh vkosnu i= ds lkFk is'k djok;k vU; eqyfteku la[;k 2]3] o 4 ls vijkf/kd "kM~;a= djrs gq, viuh tkfr

¶26

(5 of 10)

¶27

[CRLMP-172/2018]

¶28

dks fof/kfo:} rLnhd djok;k vksj mDr feF;k dwVjfpr vkosnu i= ds vk/kkj ij eqyfteku la[;k 7 uk;c rglhynkj tks/kiqj us fcuk Nkuchu o tk¡p fd, vks-ch-lh- izek.k i= dzekad 2548 fnuk¡d 13-12015 tkjh dj fn;k tks izkjEHk ls gh 'kqU; o fof/kfo:} tkjh fd;k x;k gS A

¶29

6- ;g fd jkT; iapk;rh jkt pquko 2015 ds rgr tks/kiqj ftys dh yq.kh rglhy ds iapk;r lfefr ds fuokZfpu {ks= la[;k 21 ls iapk;r lnL; lhV lekU; efgyk oxZ gsrw rFkk iapk;r lfefr iz/kku dh lhV vks-ch-lh efgyk gsrw vkjf{kr Fkh] ftl ij eqyfteku la[;k 1 ;su dsu izdjs.k fof/kfo:} rjhds ls pquko yMrs gsrw vkrqj Fkh] vkSj d"kd ¼djlk½ jktiwr lekt dks feys vks-ch-lh- vkj{k.k dk voS/k Qk;nk ysus ds nqjk'k; ls Loa; dh tkfr dqEHkkor ds LFkku ij d"kd ijekj jktiwr crkdj feF;k o QthZ vks-ch-lh- izek.k i= cuokdj vius uksfeus'ku QkeZ ¼uke funsZ'ku i=½ ds lkFkku lyXu djrs gq, feF;k lwpuk, Hkjdj lacaf/kr fjVfuZx vf/kdkjh ds le{k izLrqr fd;k A mDr uksfeus'ku QkeZ ds lkFk layXu fd, 'kiFk i= ¼mikca/k II½ fnukad 17-01-2015 esa Hkh eqyfteku la[;k 1 us viuh tkfr jktiwr gh fy[kh tks fd lgh gS tcfd izk:i 4 [k esa eqyfteku la[;k 1 us viuh tkfr dqEHkkor ds LFkku ij ijekj jktiwr vafdr dh tks feF;k vafdr dh xbZ gSA bl izdkj eqyfteku la[;k 1 }kjk Hkj x;s uksfeus'ku QkeZ ds lkFk layXu 'kiFk i= o izk:i 4[k ls Li"V tkfgj fd;k gS fd og {kf=; jktiwr tkfr ls lacaf/kr gSA vfHk;qDr la[;k 1 firk eqyfteku la[;k 5 Hkokuhflag dh tkfr {ksf=; jktiwr ¼dqEHkkor½ gS] ckotwn blds eqyfteku }kjk vkijkf/kd "kM~;a= jpdj vfHk;qDr la[;k 1 dks lnks"k ykHk igwpkus o ukrjk;r d"kd jktiwr lekt ds t:jr ean O;fDr;ksa o vke vkneh dks lnks"k gkfu igwpkus rFkk Ny diV djus ds iz;kstu ls Loa; dks d"kd jktiwr ijekj tkfr n'kkZdj fEkF;k o dwV jfpr nLrkost vks-ch-lh- izek.k i= cuok;k vkSj bldk iz;ksx djrs gq, fof/kfo:} rjhds ls iapk;d lfefr yq.kh ds iz/kku ds :i esa yksd lsod cu xbZ tks fd mldk vijk/k laKs; gksus ls izlaKku fy;k tkdj n.Muh; gS A

¶30

(6 of 10)

¶31

[CRLMP-172/2018]

¶32

7- ;g fd eqyfteku la[;k 1 ds firk eqyfteku la[;k 5 Hkokuhflag dk uke fo/kkulHkk {ks= fo/kk/kj uxj t;iqj ds Hkkx la[;k 118 ds fuokfpZu ukekoyh o"kZ 2014 esa izfof"B la[;k 184 ij ntZ lqnk gS ckotwn blds mlus Loa; dks tks/kiqj fuoklh crkdj >qBk 'kiFk i= fnukad 06-01-2015 is'k fd;k rkfd viuh iq=h eqyfteku la[;k 1 dks voS/k :i ls vks-ch-lh izek.k i= cuokdj mldk Qk;nk

¶33

fnyok ldsA

¶34

8- ;g fd eqyfte l[;k 1 us iapk;r lfefr yq.kh ds iz/kku in dks gkfly djus dh fu;r ls vU; eqyftekuksa ds lkFk vkijkf/kd "kM~;a= jprs gq, rS;kj fd, x;s dwVjfpr ewY;oku nLrkost vks-ch-lh- izek.k i= ds vk/kkj ij vks-ch-lh- vkjf{kr iz/kku lhV ij ,d yksd lsod ds :i esa fuokZfpr gks xbZ tcfd og fu;ekuqlkj vks-ch-lh- tkfr esa ugh vkdj lkekU; vukjf{kr tkfr oxZ esa vkrh gS A bl izdkj eqyfteku la[;k 1 us vU; eqyfteku o lg;ksxh;ks ds lkFk feydj lqfu;ksftr "kM;a=iwoZd o csbZekuh ls feF;k o QthZ nLrkost dks lgh :i esa is'k djus rFkk mldk xyr Qk;nk mBkus dk vkijkf/kd dR; fd;k gS A vFkkZr~ eqyfteku la[;k 1 o 5 us feF;k lwpuk nsdj rFkk eqyfteku la[;k 2 ls 4 }kjk feF;k lwpuk dk csbZekuh iwoZd] vuqfpr ykHk izkIr dj lR;kiu dj eqyfteku la[;k 7 uk;c rglhynkj tks/kiqj dks vks-ch-lh izek.k i= tkjh djus gsrw nq"izsfjr fd;k ftlls ukrjk;r d"kd jktiwr lekt ds t:jrean O;fDr;ksa o vU; ;ksX; O;fDr;k a s dks lnks"k migfr@gkfu igwps vkSj >qBsa dwV jfpr lk{; dks Loa; ds Qk;ns ds fy, lgh ¼genuine½ lk{; ds :i esa iz;ksx fd;k o >qBs feF;k ? kks"k.k djrs g q , vks-ch-lh- izek.k i= izkIr dj fy;kftl gsrw mijksDr eqyftekuksa dks nf.Mr djuk U;k;ksfpr gSA

¶35

9- ;g fd eqyfteku la[;k 1 o 5 us eqyfteku la[;k 2]3]4]6 o 7 rFkk vU; lg;ksxh;ks ds lkFk feydj vijkf/kd "kM;a= iwoZd /kks[kk/kMh ds vk'k; ls QthZ o feF;k vks-ch-lh- izek.k i= dh dwV jpuk dj iapk;r lfefr yq.kh ds lnL; o rRi'pkr iz/kku ds pquko gsrw uksfeus'ku QkeZ ds lkFk mDr vks-ch-lh- izek.k i= lacaf/kr vf/kdkjh ds le{k izLrqr fd;k o mDr "kM~;a=iwoZd rS;kj fd;s

¶36

(7 of 10)

¶37

[CRLMP-172/2018]

¶38

ewY;oku nLrkost ds feF;k o dwVjfpr gksus dh tkudkjh gksrs gq, Hkh mDr nLrkost dk iz;ksx lgh ¼genuine½ ds :i esa fd;k o dwVjfpr izek.k i= dks vius dCts esa j[kk ftlls eqyfteku dk mDr vijkf/kd d`R; Hkkjrh; n.M lafgrk dh /kkjk 420] 465] 467] 468] 471] 472] 474] 476] 196] 198] 200@34] 120ch ds rgr n.Muh; vijk/k gSA"

¶39

It is noticed that petitioners Kishan Singh and Mag Singh are referred as accused Nos. 3 and 6 respectively, whereas petitioner Neeraj Kanwar is referred as accused No.1 in the impugned FIR.

¶40

Learned counsel for the petitioners has argued that from bare reading of the allegations contained in the impugned FIR, it is clear that at the most, only the offence punishable under section 171(G) IPC is made out against the petitioner Neeraj Kanwar because the sum and substance of the allegations of the impugned FIR are that she gave wrong description about her caste in the nomination form.

¶41

Learned counsel for the petitioners has urged that offence punishable under section 171(G) IPC is a non-cognizable offence and as per the provisions of Section 195 CrPC police have no jurisdiction to register and investigate any complaint regarding commission of a non-cognizable offence without permission of the concerned Magistrate and in the present case, the police without seeking any order from the concerned Magistrate have straightaway registered the FIR and continued with the investigation.

¶42

It is further urged that as a matter of fact no offence is

¶43

(8 of 10)

¶44

[CRLMP-172/2018]

¶45

at all made out against the petitioners - Kishan Singh Panwar and Mag Singh as they simply gave certificates on the basis of affidavits filed by the concerned persons and it cannot be said that they have committed any forgery.

¶46

In support of the above contentions, learned counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance on decisions of this Court rendered in Amita Trivedi & Anr. vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr., 2012(4) Cr.L.R. (Raj.) 2177 and in Sunita & Ors. vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr. (S.B. Cr. Misc. Petition No.96/2016) decided on 31.05.2016 and prayed that the impugned FIR may be quashed.

¶47

Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor as well as the learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.2 in both the petitions have argued that the allegations contained in the impugned FIR do constitute prima facie offence against the petitioners, hence, the FIR cannot be quashed.

¶48

Learned counsel Mr Dinesh Jain appearing for the respondent No.2 has further argued that as a matter of fact S.B.Cr.Misc.Petition No.4576/2017 filed on behalf of petitionerNeeraj Kanwar is not maintainable because earlier she also preferred S.B.Cr.Misc. Petition No.1938/2015 before this Court with a prayer for quashing of the impugned FIR, however, after attempting to argue the case on merits for quite some time, counsel for the petitioner- Neeraj Kanwar did not press the said criminal misc. petition, therefore, the same was dismissed as not pressed on 06.08.2015. It is contended that it is the second

¶49

(9 of 10)

¶50

[CRLMP-172/2018]

¶51

criminal misc. petition seeking similar relief, which is not at all maintainable and liable to be dismissed.

¶52

In reply to the above argument of the learned counsel for the respondent No.2, learned counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance on a decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered in Superintendent and Remembrancer of Legal Affairs, West Bengal vs. Mohan Singh & Ors., (1975) 3 SCC 706 and argued that the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held in the said case that in appropriate case, the High Court can exercise its extraordinary powers for quashing the criminal proceedings even if on earlier occasion a similar prayer was refused.

¶53

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶54

The contention of the petitioners to the effect that from bare perusal of allegations levelled in the impugned FIR, no case for commission of cognizable offence is made out, is not tenable. In the above quoted paras of the impugned FIR specific allegations regarding preparation of forged OBC Certificate, Income Certificate and using them as genuine are levelled. If the allegations contained in the impugned FIR are taken at its face value, this Court is of the opinion that a prima facie case for commission of cognizable offence is made out. In such circumstances, the judgment passed by this Court in Amita Trivedi & Anr. vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr. and Sunita & Ors. vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr. (supra) are of no help to the petitioners.

¶55

It is noticed that the earlier petition filed on behalf of

¶56

(10 of 10)

¶57

[CRLMP-172/2018]

¶58

petitioner-Neeraj Kanwar was dismissed as not pressed with liberty to her to move a representation before the Investigating Officer and pursuant to that, as per the counsel for the petitioners, she moved a detailed representation along with certain documents before the Investigating Officer, however, the Investigating Officer is not taking into consideration the same in right perspective and, therefore, the petitioner-Neeraj Kanwar has preferred this fresh misc. petition (S.B.Cr.Misc. Petition No.4576/2017).

¶59

There is no doubt that in appropriate case and in changed circumstances, this Court can entertain a second criminal misc. petition even if on earlier occasion, a prayer for granting similar relief as prayed in the subsequent petition, has been refused by the court, however, in the present case, no such circumstance is pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioners which warrants interference of this Court. However, for the satisfaction of myself, I have gone through the case diary and carefully scrutinized the material collected by the police during the course of investigation on the basis of which, the police have concluded that prima facie case against the petitioners for commission of cognizable offence such as cheating and preparation of forged document is made out and I am satisfied that the investigation is going on in fair manner.

¶60

Resultantly, I do not find any merit in these writ petitions and the same are, therefore, dismissed.

¶61

(VIJAY BISHNOI),J.

¶62

m.asif/PS

Neeraj Kanwar v. State and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Neeraj Kanwar v. State and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Jagdish Goliya Vs State and Anr.

Firm Vinayak Fuel Filling Station Vs Haridas

Augad Ram and Ors. Vs State and Anr.

Ramesh and Ors. Vs State and Anr.

Babu Lal Vs State and Anr.

Ashok Purohit Vs State and Ors.