The Rajasthan High Court rejected a criminal miscellaneous petition filed under Section 482 CrPC challenging the framing of charges for election offences. The court held that the lower courts had no illegality in relying on the FSL report and witness statements establishing the forged nature of documents.
no relief
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 580/2023
Moola Ram S/o Bhiya Ram, Aged About 40 Years, R/o Village Balau Jati, Tehsil Kalyanpur, District Barmer (Rajasthan)
----Petitioner
----Respondents
| For Petitioner(s) | : Mr. Vishan Das Vaishnav |
|---|---|
| For Respondent(s) | : Mr. Mahipal Bishnoi,PP |
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MADAN GOPAL VYAS Order
11/08/2023
The present criminal misc. petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. has been preferred by the petitioner against the order dated 3.11.2022 passed by the learned Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Balotra in Cr. Revision Petition No.22/2017 whereby the revision petition filed by the petitioner against the order dated 17.3.2017 passed in Cr. Case No.260/2016 by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Pachpadara framing charge against the petitioner for the offences under Sections 465, 468, 471, 420 and 120B of the IPC, has been rejected.
[CRLMP-580/2023]
(2 of 5)
as many as three candidates including the wife of the present petitioner before the Returning Officer. The elections were conducted on 20.1.2015 wherein the wife of the petitioner was declared as an elected candidate. In the complaint it was claimed that the wife of the petitioner was not having the requisite qualification of Class-VIII passed and she has submitted false certificate of qualification alongwith nomination papers before the Returning Officer, which is punishable under Sections 465, 468, 471, 420 and 120B of the IPC. On the said complaint, an FIR No.3/2015 was registered for the offenses aforesaid.
[CRLMP-580/2023]
(3 of 5)
was prepared on 18.7.1997, whereas the marriage of the petitioner was soleminzed with Smt. Phooli Devi in the year 2003. Learned counsel submits that the conclusion of the FSL reort is not definite, whereas the learned trial court relied upon the FSL report while passing the impugned orders. Therefore, both the courts below have committed grave illegality while framing the charges and rejecting the revision petition. Thus, it is submitted that the present criminal misc. petition deserves to be allowed. In support of his arguments, learned counsel relied upon the following judgments of Hon’ble Supreme Court and this Court:
(i) Chennadi Jalapathi Reddy Vs. Baddam Pratapa Reddy (Dead) through LRs & Ors reported in MANU/SC/1165/2019 (ii) Nathu Lal Vs. State & Anr. (SB Cr. Misc. Petition No.2407/2017), Rajasthan High Court, decided on 13.9.2017 (iii) Balbir Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan reported in 2016 (4) Cr.L.R. (Raj.) 1824.
[CRLMP-580/2023]
(4 of 5)
Forensic Science Laborator, Jodhpur with regard to the following question:
“The blue enclosed disputed signature stamped
and marked as Q1 is a forged signature.”
[CRLMP-580/2023]
(5 of 5)
cannot be said that the TC in question has been issued on 18.7.1997.
(MADAN GOPAL VYAS),J
372-CPGoyal/-
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the trial and revisional courts committed illegality in relying upon the forensic report and statements while framing charges and rejecting the revision petition.
Whether the cited Supreme Court and High Court judgments assist the petitioner in the present circumstances regarding forged documents and election disputes.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Moola Ram
State of Rajasthan
Moola Ram Potalia
Madan Gopal Vyas
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
