Full Judgment Text
NON-REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1222 OF 2018
KOMAL PRASAD SHAKYA …APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
RAJENDRA SINGH AND OTHERS …RESPONDENT(S)
WITH
CRIMINAL APPEAL NOS.1223-1224 OF 2018
RAKESH MISHRA AND ANR. …APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
RAJENDRA SINGH AND OTHERS …RESPONDENT(S)
J U D G M E N T
K.V. Viswanathan, J.
1. The present appeals call in question the correctness of the
judgment and order passed by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh,
Bench at Gwalior in Miscellaneous Criminal Case No.5897 of 2014
and Miscellaneous Criminal Case No.6319 of 2014 dated 28.06.2016.
Page 1 of 21
By the said judgment, the High Court has quashed the Criminal
Complaint filed against the individual respondents herein, by the
appellant in Criminal Appeal No.1222 of 2018, before the Chief
Judicial Magistrate First Class, Guna. The complaint was filed in
Criminal Complaint Case No.1072 of 2014 for offences under
Sections 415, 416, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120B of the Indian Penal
Code, 1860 (for short the “IPC”). The Chief Judicial Magistrate First
Class, by order dated 28.05.2014, took cognizance for offences
punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120B IPC and
issued summons to the accused. The Additional Sessions Judge, by
his order dated 01.07.2014, had dismissed the revision filed by the
accused. The case was committed to the Sessions Court by the order
dated 30.08.2014. However, by the impugned order, the proceedings
stand quashed.
2. The complainant, Komal Prasad Shakya, is in appeal before us
in Criminal Appeal No.1222 of 2018, aggrieved by the quashment of
proceedings against accused Rajendra Singh, Harvir Singh and Amrik
Singh. In the second matter, one Sh. Rakesh Mishra and one Sh. Anil
Sharma have obtained leave from this Court to challenge the
Page 2 of 21
quashment order and they have challenged the order claiming
themselves to be social activists, including against the accused Smt.
Kiran Jain (not part of the first appeal).
AVERMENTS IN THE COMPLAINT: -
3. The facts lie in a narrow compass. Criminal Complaint Case
No.1072 of 2014 was filed before the Chief Judicial Magistrate
alleging that accused Rajendra Singh and Amrik Singh - son and
father respectively and are members of the unreserved category. They
throughout held themselves out as General Category candidates. In
the school admission register of Accused No. 1, he was shown as a
“Sikh”. Accused Nos.1 and 2 did not belong to Scheduled Caste and
before 20.02.2008 never claimed to be belonging to Scheduled Caste.
They obtained ration card as General Category persons.
4. According to the Complaint, Accused No.1-Rajendra Singh,
knowing that he is not a member of the Scheduled Caste, contested
the 029 Guna Legislative Assembly Seat as a reserved category
candidate, claiming himself to be belonging to the Scheduled Caste-
Sansi. False information and affidavit were given claiming that he
belonged to Sansi caste. Even Amrik Singh, the father, in support of
Page 3 of 21
his son submitted false affidavit before the Tehsildar, Guna and
forged the documents. Accused No.1, Rajendra Singh, hiding the
facts wrote about him as belonging to Sansi caste both in the
application and the affidavit and obtained the certificate of being
member of the Scheduled Caste from the Tehsildar, Guna and then
from the Sub-Divisional Officer, Guna on the basis of the temporary
certificate. The accused No.1, Rajendra Singh, knowing that he is not
of the Sansi caste, in the election to the Guna Assembly, gave forged
affidavit and application and used the certificate obtained on the basis
of false information for contesting the Legislative Assembly Election.
The other accused conspired with the accused No.1 in helping him
obtain Scheduled Caste Certificate on the basis of false facts and
affidavit. The other accused gave statement of certification,
investigation report, and signed panchnamas in favour of Accused
No.1.
5. The Complainant averred that the accused Kiran Jain, being
Councilor of Ward No.16, gave certification that accused Rajendra
Singh belonged to Sansi caste, knowing that Rajendra Singh did not
belong to Sansi caste. The accused Harvir Singh, from the
Page 4 of 21
Gurudwara Management Committee, Guna, gave certification of
Rajendra Singh Saluja-Accused No.1 as belonging to Sansi caste
knowing that the Accused No.1 did not belong to Sansi caste.
6. Similar allegations of conspiracy were also made against other
accused arraigned in the complaint. That accused Gajadhar Prasad
Agarwal submitted false affidavit and statement to Tehsil, Guna,
knowing fully well that accused-Rajendra Singh and his father Amrik
Singh were not members of the Scheduled Caste. Equally, accused
Dr. R.S. Bhati gave a false medical certificate. Accused-Awadhesh
Maheshwari prepared one panchnama on false basis and signed the
panchnama stating wrongly that the accused-Rajendra Singh is of
‘Sansi’ caste. It was also falsely mentioned that accused-Rajendra
Singh was residing in the State of Punjab in the year 1950 and that the
caste was Sansi. On the said panchnama accused-Mahendra Sharma,
Patwari, also signed and prepared forged documents and helped in the
preparation of the caste certificate. Accused-Virender Katare misused
the post of Tehsildar and issued provisional caste certificate stating
that accused-Rajendra Singh is of ‘Sansi’ caste. Accused-D.K. Jain,
Sub-Divisional Officer, by not adopting the laid-down procedure,
Page 5 of 21
issued permanent caste certificate to accused-Rajendra Singh without
doing any investigation himself. The accused-Awadhesh Pratap
Singh did not do investigation according to the instructions of the
Investigation Committee about the caste of Accused No.1.
7. It was further averred in the complaint that the Scheduled Caste
Certificates Investigation Committee, Bhopal found that the accused
was not a resident of Madhya Pradesh before the year 1950. The
Committee, after finding that the certificate was wrongly issued,
cancelled the certificate issued to Rajendra Singh. The High Court
dismissed the Writ Petition of Rajendra Singh on 21.03.2012. The
Writ Appeal was dismissed on 17.05.2012 and this Court dismissed
the Special Leave Petition on 04.03.2013. The caste certificate was
confiscated on 26.05.2012. In spite of complaint to the Superintendent
of Police, no action being taken, the complaint was lodged against the
accused for offences punishable under Sections 415, 416, 420, 467,
468, 471 and 120B, IPC.
8. On 28.05.2014, after recording the solemn affirmation of
witnesses, the Trial Court took cognizance and issued summons
against accused-Rajendra Singh (under Sections 420, 467, 468 and
Page 6 of 21
471 IPC) and against Amrik Singh, Harvir Singh & Kiran Jain (under
Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 read with Section 120B, IPC). The
complaint was dismissed with regard to the other accused. The
revision filed before the Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Guna by the
accused was dismissed on 01.07.2014. On 30.08.2014 the Trial Judge
committed the case to the Sessions Court.
9. The respondents filed two separate Quash Petitions in the High
Court. While Harvir Singh, Amrik Singh and Rajendra Singh filed
Miscellaneous Criminal Case No.5897 of 2014, Kiran Jain filed
Miscellaneous Criminal Case No.6319 of 2014. The High Court
having allowed the Quash Petitions by its judgment dated 28.06.2016,
the appellants are before us in appeal(s).
ORDER OF THE HIGH COURT: -
10. The High Court virtually conducted a dress rehearsal of the trial.
The High Court held that the conduct of Rajendra Singh in claiming
himself to be a “Sikh”, first for a number of years, and only thereafter
setting-up the case that he was a Sansi, could be due to ignorance of
law; that the case of Harvir Singh and Kiran Jain were similar to the
other accused against whom cognizance was not taken; that due to
Page 7 of 21
legal illiteracy it was possible that being a member of “Sikh”
community, father or grandfather of the accused-Rajendra Singh
would not have thought that they can claim for various reservations
on the basis of their caste and, therefore, the applicants have declared
themselves as “Sikh” while filling-up the column in various
applications and other documents; that there was no evidence to show
that information received from the office of Tehsildar of Amritsar was
manipulated by the accused-Rajendra Singh or his father Amrik
Singh; and that one Sub-Inspector sent for verification of the
information, found the information to be correct that the forefathers of
the accused-Rajendra Singh were registered as ‘Sansi’ by the office of
Tehsildar, Amritsar.
11. The High Court also rendered a categoric finding about offences
under Sections 467, 468 and 471 not being attracted based on the text
of the caste certificate. The High Court held that insufficiency of
evidence leading to the issuance of the caste certificate will not attract
the offence of forgery.
12. It was further held that when the said document was not
challenged and no evidence was produced that information or
Page 8 of 21
certificate issued by the Tehsildar, Amritsar was not correct, then it
cannot be said that by filing of an application and getting a caste
certificate dated 08.08.2008 the accused-Rajendra Singh had
committed the crime of cheating. Similarly, it was held by the High
Court that if on the basis of information given by the senior members
of the family, the accused-Amrik Singh had executed an affidavit in
support of the accused-Rajendra Singh, then it cannot be said that he
participated in the conspiracy of cheating. No criminal act emerges
from the cancellation of the certificate by the High Powered Scrutiny
Committee. Hence, according to the High Court, none of the offences
for which cognizance was taken was attracted, so holding the High
Court quashed the proceedings.
CONTENTIONS OF LEARNED COUNSEL: -
13. We have heard Mr. Anuj Bhandari, learned counsel for the
appellant and Ms. Ruchi Kohli, learned senior counsel for the
accused-respondents.
14. Mr. Anuj Bhandari, learned counsel, submits that as evidenced
by the ration card and other documents, accused-Rajendra Singh
claimed to be a General Category candidate all his life, and none of
Page 9 of 21
his family members ever claimed to be Scheduled Caste. It was only
on 08.08.2008, just two months prior to the declaration of election,
accused-Rajendra Singh got a false caste certificate issued in his name
stating to be of “Sansi” community (Scheduled Caste). On the
strength of the said false certificate the accused contested from the
Guna Constituency and won the election.
15. The Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee, by its order dated
10.08.2011, rightly set aside the caste certificate and the challenge to
the orders of the Caste Scrutiny Committee by the accused-Rajendra
Singh were not fruitful.
16. Learned counsel relied on the judgment of this Court in Kumari
Madhuri Patil and Another vs Addl. Commissioner, Tribal
1
Development and Others , wherein this Court in Para 13(14) held
that- in case scrutiny committee found that the certificate obtained or
social status claimed was found to be false, the parent/guardian/the
candidate should be prosecuted for making false claim; learned
counsel submitted that there is clear allegation about the forgery of
the panchnama in the complaint; learned counsel submitted that the
1
(1994) 6 SCC 241
Page 10 of 21
matter ought to have been set down for trial and should not have been
nipped in the bud; learned counsel submitted that the offence of
cheating is clearly attracted and submitted that the word “property”
occurring under Section 420, IPC, is what the person benefitted
acquires. Learned counsel contended that the defence of the accused
could not be looked to at the stage of considering the Quash Petition.
17. Ms. Ruchi Kohli, learned senior counsel appearing for the
accused submitted that complaint reeks of malafide, and is a witch-
hunt against the accused. According to the learned senior counsel, no
criminality was attributed by the Caste Scrutiny Committee. Learned
senior counsel submits that the complaint, even if taken at the face
value, the allegations pertaining to forgery i.e., Sections 467, 468 and
471 IPC, have not been established as taking the case of the
complainant at the highest, obtaining documents based on false
information would not be forgery. According to the learned senior
counsel, the complainant has nowhere alleged that the answering
respondent has signed, sealed, executed or prepared the document. In
view of that, there is no case of commission of forgery being made
out.
Page 11 of 21
18. Learned senior counsel further contends that the impugned order
has rightly recorded that there was no evidence on record to establish
that there was any manipulation of record at the office of the
Tehsildar, Amritsar. Learned senior counsel contends that even the
SP who verified the information stated that the Tehsildar had in fact,
given the information. The learned senior counsel contends that there
being no malafide intent in obtaining the certificate, no element of
cheating also is attracted and the caste certificate was cancelled due to
lack of procedural norms being followed. The learned senior counsel
prayed for dismissal of the Civil Appeal(s).
FINDINGS: -
19. We have carefully considered the contentions of the learned
counsels for the parties and perused the records.
20. The undisputed facts that emerge are that the respondent-
accused Rajendra Singh on 08.08.2008 obtained the caste certificate
showing him as Scheduled Caste from the Sub-Divisional Officer,
Guna, portraying him as belonging to ‘Sansi’ caste. It is also
undisputed that the responded-accused Rajendra Singh contested the
Page 12 of 21
election to the 029-Guna (SC reserved) Assembly Constituency and
won the election. On a reference to the Scrutiny Committee, by its
order dated 10.08.2011, the Scrutiny Committee directed the
forfeiture of the caste certificate by recording the following operative
directions:
“(4) It was found after examination of record and statements of
witnesses that Caste Certificate of 'Sansi' has been issued in the
name of Sri Rajendra Singh Saluja only on the basis of
affidavits and statements of witnesses. There is no certified
document regarding in proof of being residents of Saluja's
family of Central India prior to 1950. It was also found that
Rajendra Singh Saluja has not mentioned his caste "Sansi" in
any important documents and at other places.
During inquiry of application of Sri Rajendra Singh Saluja
for obtaining Caste Certificate, it is evident from sending of
letter to Tehsildar, Amritsar with "Q" number through FAX on
5.5.2008 and after receiving information on 20.5.2008 and
issuing Provisional Caste Certificate on 31.5.2008 that
competent Revenue Officer has been benefited for doing
favour to Sri Rajendra Singh Saluja. In this entire case,
prescribed procedure for disposal of revenue matters under
M.P. Land Revenue Code, such as, issuing notice, service of
notice, maintenance of records etc, have not been complied
with.
In totality, this is the decision of Committee after
consideration of this matter that Sri Rajendra Singh Saluja
failed in producing documentary evidence regarding being
resident of Madhya Pradesh in 1950. Issuing of Certificate of
Sansi Caste by Revenue Officers in illegal manner was found
Page 13 of 21
and for this, Revenue Officer and Investigating Police Officer
are responsible. Committee holds the decision of canceling and
forfeiting the Caste Certificate of Sansi Caste dated 8.8.2008 of
Sri Rajendra Singh Saluja.
Committee also recommends for taking disciplinary action
against Issuing Officer of Caste Certificate, Inquiry Officers
and non-applicant for taking undue advantage of the post
reserved for Scheduled Caste in unauthorized manner.
The aforesaid Caste Certificate of Sri Rajendra Singh
Saluja, son of Sri Amrik Singh Saluja be forfeited getting it
cancelled with immediate effect and action be initiated under
different Acts.”
The decision has been sustained right up to this Court.
21. We have perused the Criminal Complaint filed on 18.07.2013 in
Criminal Case No.1072 of 2014. We have summarized the complaint
in the earlier part of the judgment. As would be clear from the
averments summarized above, it could not be said that on a reading of
the complaint and the unimpeachable documents that no offence
under Sections 420, 467, 468, and 471, IPC, against accused-Rajendra
Singh and Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 read with Section 120B, IPC,
against accused-Amrik Singh, Harvir Singh and Smt. Kiran Jain are
prima facie made out. No doubt the ultimate outcome will be subject
to further proof at the trial. In other words, it could not be said that on
Page 14 of 21
a demurrer the complaint can be quashed against the said four
accused.
22. It is clearly alleged in the complaint that Rajendra Singh and
Amrik Singh belong to General category and always held out
themselves to be belonging to General category and only for the
purpose of contesting the election as a reserved candidate on the eve
of the election submitted documents and affidavits and panchnama
for obtaining the caste certificate. We have also perused the order
taking cognizance. The learned Trial Judge has meticulously applied
his mind and sifted the chaff from the grain and out of twelve accused
arrayed has, for the reason adduced, taken cognizance only against the
four respondents-accused herein.
23. We are consciously not delving into the merits of the averments
lest it prejudice the case of the accused at the trial. The High Court
has conducted a mini trial as is clear from the following findings:
“(19) As discussed above, due to legal illiteracy, it is possible
that being a member of "Sikh" community, father or grand-
father of the applicant Rajendra Singh would not have
thought that they can claim for various reservations etc. on the
basis of their caste and therefore the applicant Rajendra Singh
and his family members have used the name of the community
as "Sikh" while filling up column of caste in various
applications and documents. However, it is pertinent to note
Page 15 of 21
that there is no evidence filed by the complainant to show that
the information received from the office of Tahsildar of Tahsil
Amritsar [State of Punjab] was manipulated by the applicant
Rajendra Singh or his father Amreek Singh. One Sub-Inspector
was sent for verification of that information and he found the
information to be correct that the forefathers of applicant Rajendra
Singh were registered as "Sansi" by caste in the office of Tahsildar
of Tahsil Amritsar [State of Punjab]. It would be clear that due to
such verification, S.P. Guna did not register any criminal case
against any of the applicants, after getting the order of High Power
Scrutiny Committee. When that document was not challenged and
no evidence was produced that information or certificate issued by
the Tahsildar, Amritsar, was not correct then it cannot be said that
by filing of an application and getting a caste certificate dated
08.08.2008, the applicant Rajendra Singh had committed a crime
of cheating. Similarly, if on the basis of information given by the
senior members of the family, the applicant Amreek Singh had
executed an affidavit in support of the applicant Rajendra Singh
then it cannot be said that he participated in the conspiracy of
cheating.
(20) In the order dated 10.08.2011 passed by the High Power
Scrutiny Committee, no comments were given on the certificate or
the information received from the office of Tahsildar of Tahsil
Amritsar. Hence, though the certificate was cancelled and forfeited
but no criminal aspect emerges from that cancellation order
because the High Power Scrutiny Committee did not give any
opinion that information received from the office of Tahsildar
of Tahsil Amritsar was incorrect or such information was
recorded in that office by fraudulent applications etc.
(21) As discussed above that possibility cannot be ruled out
that the applicant Rajendra Singh was not aware about his
caste. He and his father were of the view that initially they
were "Sikh" but when they obtained an information that
amongst the Sikh community there are so many castes and
they were of the caste "Sansi" then if the applicant has
claimed for the right of that caste by moving an application to
get a caste certificate and a caste certificate was also provided
Page 16 of 21
by Sub-Divisional Officer, Guna on 08.08.2008 then in the
light of the information received from office of Tahsildar of
Tahsil Amritsar [State of Punjab] the overt act of the
applicants Rajendra Singh and Amreek Singh do not fall
within the purview of cheating . When the applicant Rajendra
Singh got an intimation that he belongs to "Sansi" caste which
falls within the Scheduled Caste category then if he moved any
application and collected some documents in support of his
application then he had every right to prosecute his rights. Unless
it was established that the information sent by office of
Tahsildar of Tahsil Amritsar [State of Punjab] was incorrect
or those were prepared due to fraudulent activities of the
applicant Rajendra Singh or his father applicant Amreek
Singh then prima facie it shall be presumed that the
forefathers of the applicant Rajendra Singh were registered as
the persons belonging to "Sansi" by caste at office of
Tahsildar of Tahsil Amritsar [State of Punjab]. Hence, though
the caste certificate was cancelled and forfeited by the High Power
Scrutiny Committee but no criminal indication emerges by the
cancellation of that certificate. Hence, if the applicant Rajendra
Singh and his father Amreek Singh have tried to get an advantage
of the caste of their forefathers whose caste was already registered
soon after the year 1950 at the office of Tahsildar of Tahsil
Amritsar [State of Punjab] then their conduct does not fall within
the purview of cheating. Nobody is prohibited to get the
advantage of his/her caste. It is a different thing that due to
non-availability of proper evidence and without proceeding
according to the appropriate procedure the Sub-Divisional
Officer, Guna had issued a caste certificate in favour of the
applicant Rajendra Singh and thereafter it was cancelled by
the High Power Scrutiny Committee then still the applicant
Rajendra Singh and Amreek Singh cannot be held guilty of
offence of cheating. Hence, no offence under Section 420 of IPC
or inferior offence of similar nature is prima facie made out
against the applicants Rajendra Singh as well as Amreek Singh.
Page 17 of 21
(22) On the basis of the aforesaid discussion, it would be
apparent that no offence under Section 467, 468 or 471 of IPC
is made out against any of the applicants either directly or
with the help of Section 120-B of IPC because the caste
certificate dated 08.08.2008 was not prima facie established to
be forged. Similarly, in the light of the information given by
office of Tahsildar of Tahsil Amritsar [State of Punjab] where the
caste of the forefathers of the applicant Rajendra Singh is
mentioned as "Sansi", no offence of cheating is made out against
any of the applicants either directly or with the help of Section
120-B of IPC. Both the courts below did not consider the legal
aspects of the case as discussed above and orders passed by the
courts below are perverse. Though the present petitions are
allowable against the orders passed by the courts below, however,
applicants have also challenged the registration of complaint and
therefore this Court is competent to quash the proceedings of the
criminal complaint before the concerned court.”
(Emphasis supplied)
24. The findings about legal illiteracy are conjectural and patently
erroneous. Further at the stage of exercising powers under Section
482 to record that no evidence was produced is also untenable. The
further finding that the accused-Rajendra Singh and Amrik Singh
were unaware about the caste initially is also conjectural in nature. In
so far as accused-Harvir Singh and Smt. Kiran Jain are concerned the
averments in complaint are to the effect that accused-Kiran Jain being
Councilor of Ward No.16 gave certification of the accused-Rajendra
Singh being of Sansi caste with the knowledge that accused-Rajendra
Page 18 of 21
Singh was not of Sansi caste. Similarly, Harvir Singh also certifying
about the accused-Rajendra Singh as belonging to the Sansi caste was
alleged in the complaint to be an act done to favour Rajendra Singh.
25. The argument of Ms. Ruchi Kohli, learned senior counsel that
the complaint was a witch-hunt is too sweeping a statement to be
accepted particularly in view of the finding of the Scrutiny
Committee. The further argument that no case for offences under
Sections 467, 468, and 471, IPC are attracted is also a contention
which cannot be accepted at this stage. The averments in the
complaint do allege forgery having been practiced for obtaining the
certificate. The relevant paras of the complaint are extracted
hereinbelow:-
“6. The accused no. 2 to 11 in collusion with accused no. 1, with
the intention to give him benefit, under a conspiracy in making
Scheduled caste certificate on the basis of false facts, giving
affidavit in favour of accused no. 1, giving statement of
certification, giving investigation report in his favour and signing
on the panchnama, fully contributed and forging the fake
documents, cheatingly got involved in the conspiracy and
deliberately did the crime.
7. …The accused no. 11 Avdesh Maheshwari to give benefit to the
accused Rajinder Singh, joining in conspiracy prepared one
panchnama on dated 30.03.2008 on false basis and did his
signatures and in the panchnama this was totally false and forged
writing that the accused Rajinder Singh is of Sansi caste. This
Page 19 of 21
false and forged thing was also written that the family of the
accused Rajinder Singh was residing in Punjab State in the year
1950. And their caste is Sansi. On this very Panchnama the
accused no. 5 Mahender Sharma Patwari also signed and preparing
forged documents, involved in the conspiracy and helped him in
preparing caste certificate…
8. …The accused Virender Katare considered correct the letter and
panchnama of the Tehsildar without any fair investigation, having
false basis whereas that is forged document which has been
managed by the accused Rajinder Singh Saluja himself in
collusion with Virender Katare. The panchnama which has been
considered as basis by the accused Virender Katare that is in Hindi
and there the word of caste not being Sansi rather Sanhsi has been
written.”
26. As to whether the offences will be made out at the trial will
depend on the evidence adduced. At this stage, it cannot be said that
there is a case for nipping the prosecution for these accused at the
bud.
27. Equally, the contention that Section 420, IPC, is not attracted
even taking the complaint as it is, is also a contention which is bereft
of merit. The appellants contended that accused-Rajendra Singh was
the beneficiary and the caste certificate was the “property” which was
obtained by deceiving the authorities. As to whether the complainant
is able to make good the case at the trial will depend upon the
evidence which is forthcoming.
Page 20 of 21
28. In view of what has been stated hereinabove, we allow the
appeals and set aside the order of the High Court dated 28.06.2016 in
Miscellaneous Criminal Case No.5897 of 2014 and Miscellaneous
Criminal Case No.6319 of 2014. The Criminal Complaint Case
No.1072 of 2014 on the file of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Guna,
along with the order dated 28.05.2014 taking cognizance will stand
restored to the file of Chief Judicial Magistrate First Class, Guna. We
direct that the trial shall be proceeded with from that stage.
Considering that it is a complaint of 2014 we further direct that the
trial be concluded expeditiously in any event within a period of one
year from today. Needless to observe that the trial will be held
uninfluenced by the findings of the High Court and this Court in the
present proceeding.
……….........................J.
[ B.V. NAGARATHNA ]
……….........................J.
[ K. V. VISWANATHAN ]
New Delhi;
th
14 October, 2025
Page 21 of 21
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1222 OF 2018
KOMAL PRASAD SHAKYA …APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
RAJENDRA SINGH AND OTHERS …RESPONDENT(S)
WITH
CRIMINAL APPEAL NOS.1223-1224 OF 2018
RAKESH MISHRA AND ANR. …APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
RAJENDRA SINGH AND OTHERS …RESPONDENT(S)
J U D G M E N T
K.V. Viswanathan, J.
1. The present appeals call in question the correctness of the
judgment and order passed by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh,
Bench at Gwalior in Miscellaneous Criminal Case No.5897 of 2014
and Miscellaneous Criminal Case No.6319 of 2014 dated 28.06.2016.
Page 1 of 21
By the said judgment, the High Court has quashed the Criminal
Complaint filed against the individual respondents herein, by the
appellant in Criminal Appeal No.1222 of 2018, before the Chief
Judicial Magistrate First Class, Guna. The complaint was filed in
Criminal Complaint Case No.1072 of 2014 for offences under
Sections 415, 416, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120B of the Indian Penal
Code, 1860 (for short the “IPC”). The Chief Judicial Magistrate First
Class, by order dated 28.05.2014, took cognizance for offences
punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120B IPC and
issued summons to the accused. The Additional Sessions Judge, by
his order dated 01.07.2014, had dismissed the revision filed by the
accused. The case was committed to the Sessions Court by the order
dated 30.08.2014. However, by the impugned order, the proceedings
stand quashed.
2. The complainant, Komal Prasad Shakya, is in appeal before us
in Criminal Appeal No.1222 of 2018, aggrieved by the quashment of
proceedings against accused Rajendra Singh, Harvir Singh and Amrik
Singh. In the second matter, one Sh. Rakesh Mishra and one Sh. Anil
Sharma have obtained leave from this Court to challenge the
Page 2 of 21
quashment order and they have challenged the order claiming
themselves to be social activists, including against the accused Smt.
Kiran Jain (not part of the first appeal).
AVERMENTS IN THE COMPLAINT: -
3. The facts lie in a narrow compass. Criminal Complaint Case
No.1072 of 2014 was filed before the Chief Judicial Magistrate
alleging that accused Rajendra Singh and Amrik Singh - son and
father respectively and are members of the unreserved category. They
throughout held themselves out as General Category candidates. In
the school admission register of Accused No. 1, he was shown as a
“Sikh”. Accused Nos.1 and 2 did not belong to Scheduled Caste and
before 20.02.2008 never claimed to be belonging to Scheduled Caste.
They obtained ration card as General Category persons.
4. According to the Complaint, Accused No.1-Rajendra Singh,
knowing that he is not a member of the Scheduled Caste, contested
the 029 Guna Legislative Assembly Seat as a reserved category
candidate, claiming himself to be belonging to the Scheduled Caste-
Sansi. False information and affidavit were given claiming that he
belonged to Sansi caste. Even Amrik Singh, the father, in support of
Page 3 of 21
his son submitted false affidavit before the Tehsildar, Guna and
forged the documents. Accused No.1, Rajendra Singh, hiding the
facts wrote about him as belonging to Sansi caste both in the
application and the affidavit and obtained the certificate of being
member of the Scheduled Caste from the Tehsildar, Guna and then
from the Sub-Divisional Officer, Guna on the basis of the temporary
certificate. The accused No.1, Rajendra Singh, knowing that he is not
of the Sansi caste, in the election to the Guna Assembly, gave forged
affidavit and application and used the certificate obtained on the basis
of false information for contesting the Legislative Assembly Election.
The other accused conspired with the accused No.1 in helping him
obtain Scheduled Caste Certificate on the basis of false facts and
affidavit. The other accused gave statement of certification,
investigation report, and signed panchnamas in favour of Accused
No.1.
5. The Complainant averred that the accused Kiran Jain, being
Councilor of Ward No.16, gave certification that accused Rajendra
Singh belonged to Sansi caste, knowing that Rajendra Singh did not
belong to Sansi caste. The accused Harvir Singh, from the
Page 4 of 21
Gurudwara Management Committee, Guna, gave certification of
Rajendra Singh Saluja-Accused No.1 as belonging to Sansi caste
knowing that the Accused No.1 did not belong to Sansi caste.
6. Similar allegations of conspiracy were also made against other
accused arraigned in the complaint. That accused Gajadhar Prasad
Agarwal submitted false affidavit and statement to Tehsil, Guna,
knowing fully well that accused-Rajendra Singh and his father Amrik
Singh were not members of the Scheduled Caste. Equally, accused
Dr. R.S. Bhati gave a false medical certificate. Accused-Awadhesh
Maheshwari prepared one panchnama on false basis and signed the
panchnama stating wrongly that the accused-Rajendra Singh is of
‘Sansi’ caste. It was also falsely mentioned that accused-Rajendra
Singh was residing in the State of Punjab in the year 1950 and that the
caste was Sansi. On the said panchnama accused-Mahendra Sharma,
Patwari, also signed and prepared forged documents and helped in the
preparation of the caste certificate. Accused-Virender Katare misused
the post of Tehsildar and issued provisional caste certificate stating
that accused-Rajendra Singh is of ‘Sansi’ caste. Accused-D.K. Jain,
Sub-Divisional Officer, by not adopting the laid-down procedure,
Page 5 of 21
issued permanent caste certificate to accused-Rajendra Singh without
doing any investigation himself. The accused-Awadhesh Pratap
Singh did not do investigation according to the instructions of the
Investigation Committee about the caste of Accused No.1.
7. It was further averred in the complaint that the Scheduled Caste
Certificates Investigation Committee, Bhopal found that the accused
was not a resident of Madhya Pradesh before the year 1950. The
Committee, after finding that the certificate was wrongly issued,
cancelled the certificate issued to Rajendra Singh. The High Court
dismissed the Writ Petition of Rajendra Singh on 21.03.2012. The
Writ Appeal was dismissed on 17.05.2012 and this Court dismissed
the Special Leave Petition on 04.03.2013. The caste certificate was
confiscated on 26.05.2012. In spite of complaint to the Superintendent
of Police, no action being taken, the complaint was lodged against the
accused for offences punishable under Sections 415, 416, 420, 467,
468, 471 and 120B, IPC.
8. On 28.05.2014, after recording the solemn affirmation of
witnesses, the Trial Court took cognizance and issued summons
against accused-Rajendra Singh (under Sections 420, 467, 468 and
Page 6 of 21
471 IPC) and against Amrik Singh, Harvir Singh & Kiran Jain (under
Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 read with Section 120B, IPC). The
complaint was dismissed with regard to the other accused. The
revision filed before the Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Guna by the
accused was dismissed on 01.07.2014. On 30.08.2014 the Trial Judge
committed the case to the Sessions Court.
9. The respondents filed two separate Quash Petitions in the High
Court. While Harvir Singh, Amrik Singh and Rajendra Singh filed
Miscellaneous Criminal Case No.5897 of 2014, Kiran Jain filed
Miscellaneous Criminal Case No.6319 of 2014. The High Court
having allowed the Quash Petitions by its judgment dated 28.06.2016,
the appellants are before us in appeal(s).
ORDER OF THE HIGH COURT: -
10. The High Court virtually conducted a dress rehearsal of the trial.
The High Court held that the conduct of Rajendra Singh in claiming
himself to be a “Sikh”, first for a number of years, and only thereafter
setting-up the case that he was a Sansi, could be due to ignorance of
law; that the case of Harvir Singh and Kiran Jain were similar to the
other accused against whom cognizance was not taken; that due to
Page 7 of 21
legal illiteracy it was possible that being a member of “Sikh”
community, father or grandfather of the accused-Rajendra Singh
would not have thought that they can claim for various reservations
on the basis of their caste and, therefore, the applicants have declared
themselves as “Sikh” while filling-up the column in various
applications and other documents; that there was no evidence to show
that information received from the office of Tehsildar of Amritsar was
manipulated by the accused-Rajendra Singh or his father Amrik
Singh; and that one Sub-Inspector sent for verification of the
information, found the information to be correct that the forefathers of
the accused-Rajendra Singh were registered as ‘Sansi’ by the office of
Tehsildar, Amritsar.
11. The High Court also rendered a categoric finding about offences
under Sections 467, 468 and 471 not being attracted based on the text
of the caste certificate. The High Court held that insufficiency of
evidence leading to the issuance of the caste certificate will not attract
the offence of forgery.
12. It was further held that when the said document was not
challenged and no evidence was produced that information or
Page 8 of 21
certificate issued by the Tehsildar, Amritsar was not correct, then it
cannot be said that by filing of an application and getting a caste
certificate dated 08.08.2008 the accused-Rajendra Singh had
committed the crime of cheating. Similarly, it was held by the High
Court that if on the basis of information given by the senior members
of the family, the accused-Amrik Singh had executed an affidavit in
support of the accused-Rajendra Singh, then it cannot be said that he
participated in the conspiracy of cheating. No criminal act emerges
from the cancellation of the certificate by the High Powered Scrutiny
Committee. Hence, according to the High Court, none of the offences
for which cognizance was taken was attracted, so holding the High
Court quashed the proceedings.
CONTENTIONS OF LEARNED COUNSEL: -
13. We have heard Mr. Anuj Bhandari, learned counsel for the
appellant and Ms. Ruchi Kohli, learned senior counsel for the
accused-respondents.
14. Mr. Anuj Bhandari, learned counsel, submits that as evidenced
by the ration card and other documents, accused-Rajendra Singh
claimed to be a General Category candidate all his life, and none of
Page 9 of 21
his family members ever claimed to be Scheduled Caste. It was only
on 08.08.2008, just two months prior to the declaration of election,
accused-Rajendra Singh got a false caste certificate issued in his name
stating to be of “Sansi” community (Scheduled Caste). On the
strength of the said false certificate the accused contested from the
Guna Constituency and won the election.
15. The Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee, by its order dated
10.08.2011, rightly set aside the caste certificate and the challenge to
the orders of the Caste Scrutiny Committee by the accused-Rajendra
Singh were not fruitful.
16. Learned counsel relied on the judgment of this Court in Kumari
Madhuri Patil and Another vs Addl. Commissioner, Tribal
1
Development and Others , wherein this Court in Para 13(14) held
that- in case scrutiny committee found that the certificate obtained or
social status claimed was found to be false, the parent/guardian/the
candidate should be prosecuted for making false claim; learned
counsel submitted that there is clear allegation about the forgery of
the panchnama in the complaint; learned counsel submitted that the
1
(1994) 6 SCC 241
Page 10 of 21
matter ought to have been set down for trial and should not have been
nipped in the bud; learned counsel submitted that the offence of
cheating is clearly attracted and submitted that the word “property”
occurring under Section 420, IPC, is what the person benefitted
acquires. Learned counsel contended that the defence of the accused
could not be looked to at the stage of considering the Quash Petition.
17. Ms. Ruchi Kohli, learned senior counsel appearing for the
accused submitted that complaint reeks of malafide, and is a witch-
hunt against the accused. According to the learned senior counsel, no
criminality was attributed by the Caste Scrutiny Committee. Learned
senior counsel submits that the complaint, even if taken at the face
value, the allegations pertaining to forgery i.e., Sections 467, 468 and
471 IPC, have not been established as taking the case of the
complainant at the highest, obtaining documents based on false
information would not be forgery. According to the learned senior
counsel, the complainant has nowhere alleged that the answering
respondent has signed, sealed, executed or prepared the document. In
view of that, there is no case of commission of forgery being made
out.
Page 11 of 21
18. Learned senior counsel further contends that the impugned order
has rightly recorded that there was no evidence on record to establish
that there was any manipulation of record at the office of the
Tehsildar, Amritsar. Learned senior counsel contends that even the
SP who verified the information stated that the Tehsildar had in fact,
given the information. The learned senior counsel contends that there
being no malafide intent in obtaining the certificate, no element of
cheating also is attracted and the caste certificate was cancelled due to
lack of procedural norms being followed. The learned senior counsel
prayed for dismissal of the Civil Appeal(s).
FINDINGS: -
19. We have carefully considered the contentions of the learned
counsels for the parties and perused the records.
20. The undisputed facts that emerge are that the respondent-
accused Rajendra Singh on 08.08.2008 obtained the caste certificate
showing him as Scheduled Caste from the Sub-Divisional Officer,
Guna, portraying him as belonging to ‘Sansi’ caste. It is also
undisputed that the responded-accused Rajendra Singh contested the
Page 12 of 21
election to the 029-Guna (SC reserved) Assembly Constituency and
won the election. On a reference to the Scrutiny Committee, by its
order dated 10.08.2011, the Scrutiny Committee directed the
forfeiture of the caste certificate by recording the following operative
directions:
“(4) It was found after examination of record and statements of
witnesses that Caste Certificate of 'Sansi' has been issued in the
name of Sri Rajendra Singh Saluja only on the basis of
affidavits and statements of witnesses. There is no certified
document regarding in proof of being residents of Saluja's
family of Central India prior to 1950. It was also found that
Rajendra Singh Saluja has not mentioned his caste "Sansi" in
any important documents and at other places.
During inquiry of application of Sri Rajendra Singh Saluja
for obtaining Caste Certificate, it is evident from sending of
letter to Tehsildar, Amritsar with "Q" number through FAX on
5.5.2008 and after receiving information on 20.5.2008 and
issuing Provisional Caste Certificate on 31.5.2008 that
competent Revenue Officer has been benefited for doing
favour to Sri Rajendra Singh Saluja. In this entire case,
prescribed procedure for disposal of revenue matters under
M.P. Land Revenue Code, such as, issuing notice, service of
notice, maintenance of records etc, have not been complied
with.
In totality, this is the decision of Committee after
consideration of this matter that Sri Rajendra Singh Saluja
failed in producing documentary evidence regarding being
resident of Madhya Pradesh in 1950. Issuing of Certificate of
Sansi Caste by Revenue Officers in illegal manner was found
Page 13 of 21
and for this, Revenue Officer and Investigating Police Officer
are responsible. Committee holds the decision of canceling and
forfeiting the Caste Certificate of Sansi Caste dated 8.8.2008 of
Sri Rajendra Singh Saluja.
Committee also recommends for taking disciplinary action
against Issuing Officer of Caste Certificate, Inquiry Officers
and non-applicant for taking undue advantage of the post
reserved for Scheduled Caste in unauthorized manner.
The aforesaid Caste Certificate of Sri Rajendra Singh
Saluja, son of Sri Amrik Singh Saluja be forfeited getting it
cancelled with immediate effect and action be initiated under
different Acts.”
The decision has been sustained right up to this Court.
21. We have perused the Criminal Complaint filed on 18.07.2013 in
Criminal Case No.1072 of 2014. We have summarized the complaint
in the earlier part of the judgment. As would be clear from the
averments summarized above, it could not be said that on a reading of
the complaint and the unimpeachable documents that no offence
under Sections 420, 467, 468, and 471, IPC, against accused-Rajendra
Singh and Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 read with Section 120B, IPC,
against accused-Amrik Singh, Harvir Singh and Smt. Kiran Jain are
prima facie made out. No doubt the ultimate outcome will be subject
to further proof at the trial. In other words, it could not be said that on
Page 14 of 21
a demurrer the complaint can be quashed against the said four
accused.
22. It is clearly alleged in the complaint that Rajendra Singh and
Amrik Singh belong to General category and always held out
themselves to be belonging to General category and only for the
purpose of contesting the election as a reserved candidate on the eve
of the election submitted documents and affidavits and panchnama
for obtaining the caste certificate. We have also perused the order
taking cognizance. The learned Trial Judge has meticulously applied
his mind and sifted the chaff from the grain and out of twelve accused
arrayed has, for the reason adduced, taken cognizance only against the
four respondents-accused herein.
23. We are consciously not delving into the merits of the averments
lest it prejudice the case of the accused at the trial. The High Court
has conducted a mini trial as is clear from the following findings:
“(19) As discussed above, due to legal illiteracy, it is possible
that being a member of "Sikh" community, father or grand-
father of the applicant Rajendra Singh would not have
thought that they can claim for various reservations etc. on the
basis of their caste and therefore the applicant Rajendra Singh
and his family members have used the name of the community
as "Sikh" while filling up column of caste in various
applications and documents. However, it is pertinent to note
Page 15 of 21
that there is no evidence filed by the complainant to show that
the information received from the office of Tahsildar of Tahsil
Amritsar [State of Punjab] was manipulated by the applicant
Rajendra Singh or his father Amreek Singh. One Sub-Inspector
was sent for verification of that information and he found the
information to be correct that the forefathers of applicant Rajendra
Singh were registered as "Sansi" by caste in the office of Tahsildar
of Tahsil Amritsar [State of Punjab]. It would be clear that due to
such verification, S.P. Guna did not register any criminal case
against any of the applicants, after getting the order of High Power
Scrutiny Committee. When that document was not challenged and
no evidence was produced that information or certificate issued by
the Tahsildar, Amritsar, was not correct then it cannot be said that
by filing of an application and getting a caste certificate dated
08.08.2008, the applicant Rajendra Singh had committed a crime
of cheating. Similarly, if on the basis of information given by the
senior members of the family, the applicant Amreek Singh had
executed an affidavit in support of the applicant Rajendra Singh
then it cannot be said that he participated in the conspiracy of
cheating.
(20) In the order dated 10.08.2011 passed by the High Power
Scrutiny Committee, no comments were given on the certificate or
the information received from the office of Tahsildar of Tahsil
Amritsar. Hence, though the certificate was cancelled and forfeited
but no criminal aspect emerges from that cancellation order
because the High Power Scrutiny Committee did not give any
opinion that information received from the office of Tahsildar
of Tahsil Amritsar was incorrect or such information was
recorded in that office by fraudulent applications etc.
(21) As discussed above that possibility cannot be ruled out
that the applicant Rajendra Singh was not aware about his
caste. He and his father were of the view that initially they
were "Sikh" but when they obtained an information that
amongst the Sikh community there are so many castes and
they were of the caste "Sansi" then if the applicant has
claimed for the right of that caste by moving an application to
get a caste certificate and a caste certificate was also provided
Page 16 of 21
by Sub-Divisional Officer, Guna on 08.08.2008 then in the
light of the information received from office of Tahsildar of
Tahsil Amritsar [State of Punjab] the overt act of the
applicants Rajendra Singh and Amreek Singh do not fall
within the purview of cheating . When the applicant Rajendra
Singh got an intimation that he belongs to "Sansi" caste which
falls within the Scheduled Caste category then if he moved any
application and collected some documents in support of his
application then he had every right to prosecute his rights. Unless
it was established that the information sent by office of
Tahsildar of Tahsil Amritsar [State of Punjab] was incorrect
or those were prepared due to fraudulent activities of the
applicant Rajendra Singh or his father applicant Amreek
Singh then prima facie it shall be presumed that the
forefathers of the applicant Rajendra Singh were registered as
the persons belonging to "Sansi" by caste at office of
Tahsildar of Tahsil Amritsar [State of Punjab]. Hence, though
the caste certificate was cancelled and forfeited by the High Power
Scrutiny Committee but no criminal indication emerges by the
cancellation of that certificate. Hence, if the applicant Rajendra
Singh and his father Amreek Singh have tried to get an advantage
of the caste of their forefathers whose caste was already registered
soon after the year 1950 at the office of Tahsildar of Tahsil
Amritsar [State of Punjab] then their conduct does not fall within
the purview of cheating. Nobody is prohibited to get the
advantage of his/her caste. It is a different thing that due to
non-availability of proper evidence and without proceeding
according to the appropriate procedure the Sub-Divisional
Officer, Guna had issued a caste certificate in favour of the
applicant Rajendra Singh and thereafter it was cancelled by
the High Power Scrutiny Committee then still the applicant
Rajendra Singh and Amreek Singh cannot be held guilty of
offence of cheating. Hence, no offence under Section 420 of IPC
or inferior offence of similar nature is prima facie made out
against the applicants Rajendra Singh as well as Amreek Singh.
Page 17 of 21
(22) On the basis of the aforesaid discussion, it would be
apparent that no offence under Section 467, 468 or 471 of IPC
is made out against any of the applicants either directly or
with the help of Section 120-B of IPC because the caste
certificate dated 08.08.2008 was not prima facie established to
be forged. Similarly, in the light of the information given by
office of Tahsildar of Tahsil Amritsar [State of Punjab] where the
caste of the forefathers of the applicant Rajendra Singh is
mentioned as "Sansi", no offence of cheating is made out against
any of the applicants either directly or with the help of Section
120-B of IPC. Both the courts below did not consider the legal
aspects of the case as discussed above and orders passed by the
courts below are perverse. Though the present petitions are
allowable against the orders passed by the courts below, however,
applicants have also challenged the registration of complaint and
therefore this Court is competent to quash the proceedings of the
criminal complaint before the concerned court.”
(Emphasis supplied)
24. The findings about legal illiteracy are conjectural and patently
erroneous. Further at the stage of exercising powers under Section
482 to record that no evidence was produced is also untenable. The
further finding that the accused-Rajendra Singh and Amrik Singh
were unaware about the caste initially is also conjectural in nature. In
so far as accused-Harvir Singh and Smt. Kiran Jain are concerned the
averments in complaint are to the effect that accused-Kiran Jain being
Councilor of Ward No.16 gave certification of the accused-Rajendra
Singh being of Sansi caste with the knowledge that accused-Rajendra
Page 18 of 21
Singh was not of Sansi caste. Similarly, Harvir Singh also certifying
about the accused-Rajendra Singh as belonging to the Sansi caste was
alleged in the complaint to be an act done to favour Rajendra Singh.
25. The argument of Ms. Ruchi Kohli, learned senior counsel that
the complaint was a witch-hunt is too sweeping a statement to be
accepted particularly in view of the finding of the Scrutiny
Committee. The further argument that no case for offences under
Sections 467, 468, and 471, IPC are attracted is also a contention
which cannot be accepted at this stage. The averments in the
complaint do allege forgery having been practiced for obtaining the
certificate. The relevant paras of the complaint are extracted
hereinbelow:-
“6. The accused no. 2 to 11 in collusion with accused no. 1, with
the intention to give him benefit, under a conspiracy in making
Scheduled caste certificate on the basis of false facts, giving
affidavit in favour of accused no. 1, giving statement of
certification, giving investigation report in his favour and signing
on the panchnama, fully contributed and forging the fake
documents, cheatingly got involved in the conspiracy and
deliberately did the crime.
7. …The accused no. 11 Avdesh Maheshwari to give benefit to the
accused Rajinder Singh, joining in conspiracy prepared one
panchnama on dated 30.03.2008 on false basis and did his
signatures and in the panchnama this was totally false and forged
writing that the accused Rajinder Singh is of Sansi caste. This
Page 19 of 21
false and forged thing was also written that the family of the
accused Rajinder Singh was residing in Punjab State in the year
1950. And their caste is Sansi. On this very Panchnama the
accused no. 5 Mahender Sharma Patwari also signed and preparing
forged documents, involved in the conspiracy and helped him in
preparing caste certificate…
8. …The accused Virender Katare considered correct the letter and
panchnama of the Tehsildar without any fair investigation, having
false basis whereas that is forged document which has been
managed by the accused Rajinder Singh Saluja himself in
collusion with Virender Katare. The panchnama which has been
considered as basis by the accused Virender Katare that is in Hindi
and there the word of caste not being Sansi rather Sanhsi has been
written.”
26. As to whether the offences will be made out at the trial will
depend on the evidence adduced. At this stage, it cannot be said that
there is a case for nipping the prosecution for these accused at the
bud.
27. Equally, the contention that Section 420, IPC, is not attracted
even taking the complaint as it is, is also a contention which is bereft
of merit. The appellants contended that accused-Rajendra Singh was
the beneficiary and the caste certificate was the “property” which was
obtained by deceiving the authorities. As to whether the complainant
is able to make good the case at the trial will depend upon the
evidence which is forthcoming.
Page 20 of 21
28. In view of what has been stated hereinabove, we allow the
appeals and set aside the order of the High Court dated 28.06.2016 in
Miscellaneous Criminal Case No.5897 of 2014 and Miscellaneous
Criminal Case No.6319 of 2014. The Criminal Complaint Case
No.1072 of 2014 on the file of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Guna,
along with the order dated 28.05.2014 taking cognizance will stand
restored to the file of Chief Judicial Magistrate First Class, Guna. We
direct that the trial shall be proceeded with from that stage.
Considering that it is a complaint of 2014 we further direct that the
trial be concluded expeditiously in any event within a period of one
year from today. Needless to observe that the trial will be held
uninfluenced by the findings of the High Court and this Court in the
present proceeding.
……….........................J.
[ B.V. NAGARATHNA ]
……….........................J.
[ K. V. VISWANATHAN ]
New Delhi;
th
14 October, 2025
Page 21 of 21