Dismissed

Pappibai (So Called) W/O Khushiram v. Manisha D/O Khiladi

Rajasthan HC14 Feb 2019CW/2975/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This order dismisses a writ petition challenging a lower court's refusal to record a criminal charge-sheet against an election petitioner. The High Court held that criminal documents are not relevant for civil election proceedings where the court has already reserved the right to examine age evidence.

What did the court decide?

Writ application dismissed holding criminal documents irrelevant for civil election proceedings reserved on age.

Pappibai (So Called) W/O Khushiram Vs Manisha D/O Khiladi — Election Law | Rajasthan HC (2019)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶2

S.B. Civil Writs No. 2975/2019

¶3

Pappibai (So Called) W/o Khushiram, Aged About 35 Years, B/c Meena, R/o Village Ukrund, Tehsil Mahwa, Panchayat Samiti Mahwa, District Dausa (Raj.).

¶4

----Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

Manisha D/o Khiladi, B/c Meena, R/o Village Ukrund, Tehsil Mahwa, Panchayat Samiti Mahwa, District Dausa (Raj.).

¶7

Returning Officer Election, (Sarpanch By Election) Gran Panchayat Ukrund, Tehsil Mahwa, Panchayat Samiti Mahwa, District Dausa Through District Election Officer Panchayat District Collector Dausa.

¶8

Chote Lal Meena, Returning Officer By Election Sarpanch Post, Village Panchayat Ukrund, Tehsil Mahwa, Panchayat Samiti Mahwa At Present Principal Govt. Senior Secondary School Thekda, Tehsil Mahwa, District Dausa.

¶9

District Election Officer Panchayat And District Collector, Dausa.

¶10

----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Jagdish, representative of the petitioner For Respondent(s) :

¶11

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VEERENDR SINGH SIRADHANA

¶12

Order

¶13

14/02/2019

¶14

An application instituted by the petitioner before the Court below on 26^th November, 2018, under Order 8 Rule 3 CPC, to take on record a copy of the charge-sheet against the respondent election-petitioner (Manisha), has been declined vide impugned

¶15

(2 of 3)

¶16

[CW-2975/2019]

¶17

order dated 21^st January, 2019; of which the petitioner is aggrieved of.

¶18

Mr. Jagdish, representative of the petitioner asserted that even the election petitioner (Manisha), was not eligible to contest the election for she was also guilty of filing a forged document as to her educational qualifications. Further, on a crime registered against her a charge-sheet has been filed in the jurisdictional Court, a copy of which was enclosed with the application dated 26^th November, 2018, with a prayer to take the same on record in the proceedings involved herein for a proper and fair adjudication of the matter. However, the Court below has declined the application vide impugned order dated 21^st January, 2019, in an arbitrary and illegal manner.

¶19

Representative further pointed out that the Court below allowed an application of the election petitioner (Manisha), permitting her to place on record the charge-sheet filed against the petitioner; hence, application of the petitioner ought to have been granted for a complete, fair and proper adjudication of the pending election petition.

¶20

Heard and considered.

¶21

From a glance of impugned order dated 21^st January, 2019, it is reflected that the petitioner earlier moved an application with a prayer to summon the original documents from the record of the Secondary Board of Education as those documents are in power and possession of the Board. However, the application after due consideration was declined. Further, the election petitioner (Manisha), has challenged the election of the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner contested the election on the basis of a certificate indicating wrong date of birth for which an FIR for

¶22

(3 of 3)

¶23

[CW-2975/2019]

¶24

offense under Section 420 and 471 IPC, was also lodged and a charge-sheet has been filed before the jurisdictional court.

¶25

The petitioner has to defend her election on the basis of written statement/defense to the election petition filed before the Court below. Moreover, the Court below has reserved the right of the petitioner to question even the issue of age of the election petitioner (Manisha), by adducing documentary evidence in that regard. However, the documents originating in the course of criminal investigation would not be relevant for adjudication of the election of the petitioner involved herein i.e. civil proceedings.

¶26

For the reasons aforesaid so also in view of reasonings recorded by the Court below while declining the application of the petitioner vide impugned order dated 21^st January, 2019; suffers with no illegality much less material illegality so as to call for any interference by this Court in exercise of writ jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

¶27

In the result, writ application fails and is hereby dismissed.

¶28

(VEERENDR SINGH SIRADHANA),J

¶29

Pooja/41

Pappibai (So Called) W/O Khushiram v. Manisha D/O Khiladi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pappibai (So Called) W/O Khushiram v. Manisha D/O Khiladi

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

Shri Marwari Khatri Panchayat Ajmer Vs Hemant Kumar @ J. Hemant Kumar Mehta S/O Shri Jawatmal Mehta

Shri Marwari Khatri Panchayat Vs Shri Munshi Ram Bhatnagar S/O Late Shri Partma Swaroop @ Narayan Swaroop Bhatnagar

Smt. Kanwari Bai Alias Ramkanwari D/O Shri Mangilal Vs Udailal S/O Shri Mangilal

Arjundas S/O Shyamdas Vs Lalludas Ji Swami Chela Ramdevdaar Ji

N. K. Meena Son of Shri Ram Singh Vs Indrajeet Son of Unknown

Vijay Singh S/O Mahaveer Prasad Singhal Vs the Director, Vardhman Mahaveer Open University