Rajasthan High Court – Jaipur
Babu Lal S/O Shri Natha Ram vs The State Of Rajasthan on 4 July, 2025
Author: Sameer Jain
Bench: Sameer Jain
[2025:RJ-JP:24406]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 1146/2025
Babu Lal S/o Shri Natha Ram, Aged About 49 Years, R/o 514, Patel
Krishi Farm, Ban Ganga, Ward No. 1, Bilara, District Jodhpur,
Rajasthan.
----Petitioner
Versus
The State Of Rajasthan, Through Public Prosecutor.
—-Respondent
Connected With
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 4941/2024
Poonma Ram S/o Tulsha Ram, Aged About 32 Years, R/o
Nayawada, Janiyon Ki Dhaani, Bagora, Jalore, Rajasthan.
—-Petitioner
Versus
1. State of Rajasthan Through Public Prosecutor.
2. Ajay Singh, Senior Deputy Secretary Rajasthan, Public Service
Commission, Ajmer.
—-Respondents
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 5795/2024
Urmila W/o Poonma Ram, R/o Janiyon Ki Dhani, Bagora, Jalore,
Rajasthan At Present Residing At Village Nayawada, Police Station
Bagora, District Sanchore, Rajasthan.
—-Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Public Prosecutor.
2. Ajay Singh, Senior Deputy Secretary Rajasthan, Public Service
Commission, Ajmer.
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr.Punit Jangid
Mr.Sahil Rajpurohit for
Mr.Deepak Chauhan
For Respondent(s) : Mr.MS Shekhawat, Dy.GA with
Mr.Vinod Sharma
Mr.Kanhiya Lal, Addl.SP, SOG Ajmer
Mr.Mojendra Singh, ASI, SOG Ajmer
Mr.MF Baig, for RPSC
(Downloaded on 05/07/2025 at 12:25:49 AM)
[2025:RJ-JP:24406] (2 of 11) [CRLMP-1146/2025]
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SAMEER JAIN
Judgment
RESERVED ON :: 01/07/2025
PRONOUNCED ON :: 4/07/2025
REPORTABLE :
1. Given that the present batch of petitions encompasses
identical reliefs, are filed by the co-accused-petitioners vis-à-vis
an FIR pertaining to use of unlawful means in a public
examination scheduled on 15.10.2022 by the Rajasthan Public
Service Commission (hereinafter referred to as “RPSC”) and
involves interrelated legal and factual issues, and with the
consent of the learned counsel representing the respective
parties, these matters are consolidated and are being adjudicated
upon by this common judgment. It is further clarified that the
findings and directions contained herein shall apply mutatis
mutandis to all connected petitions. Since the FIR predates the
enactment of the new criminal laws, references in this judgment
are to the provisions of the erstwhile law. However, provisions
that are pari materia are to be construed together, read
harmoniously and uniformly, insofar as they are materially
identical.
2. The present batch of petitions are filed with a plea to
invoke inherent jurisdiction of the Court under Section 528
B.N.S.S./482 of Cr.P.C. for quashing the F.I.R. No. 101/2024 dated
20.03.2024 registered at Police Station Civil Lines, Ajmer for the
offences under Sections 419, 420, 465, 467, 468, 471, 120-B of
IPC and Sections 3 and 10 of Rajasthan Public Examination
(Downloaded on 05/07/2025 at 12:25:49 AM)
[2025:RJ-JP:24406] (3 of 11) [CRLMP-1146/2025]
(Measures for Prevention of Unfair Means in Recruitment) Act,
2022, and the entire proceedings arising therefrom.
3. For the sake of convenience and handiness, petitioner
in SBCRLMP No. 1146/2025 is referred as Petitioner-1, SBCRLMP
No. 4941/2024 as Petitioner-2 and in SBCRLMP No. 5795/2024 as
Petitioner-3.
FACTS OF THE CASE :
4. The FIR in question was lodged by Shri Ajay Singh
Chouhan, Senior Deputy Secretary of the Rajasthan Public Service
Commission (RPSC), Ajmer. It sets forth that one Kamla Kumari
D/O Bhar Mal, had applied on 02.06.2022 for the post of Lecturer
(Hindi) under the Lecturer (School Education) Competition Exam,
2022 citing that she was then pursuing post-graduation at VMO
University, Kota, with her results pending. Following the
competitive examination, she secured provisional selection at
serial number 7, and was summoned for document verification in-
between 31.07.2023 and 14.08.2023, whereupon the candidate-
Kamla Kumari appeared on 10.08.2023. During document
verification, it was discovered that the candidate had submitted a
degree issued by Mewar University, Chittorgarh, dated prior to her
online application. Upon noticing this discrepancy, RPSC solicited a
certification from Vardhaman Mahavir Open University, Kota,
confirming that her academic status as declared in the application
rendered her ineligible. Consequently, an FIR was registered
against Kamla Devi (Annexure-1). The FIR encompasses
allegations of a large-scale conspiracy involving fabrication of
educational credentials; it was contended that certain individuals
(Downloaded on 05/07/2025 at 12:25:49 AM)
[2025:RJ-JP:24406] (4 of 11) [CRLMP-1146/2025]
procured and distributed forged degree certificates from Mewar
University in order to secure illicit benefits. This FIR was
subsequently entrusted to the Special Operations Group (herein
after referred to as “SOG”), Rajasthan, for investigation.
SUBMISSIONS BY COUNSEL REPRESENTING THE PETITIONERS :
5. At the very outset, learned counsel appearing for the
petitioners submitted that, at the time of registration of the
impugned FIR, the names of the petitioners did not figure therein,
as no evidence or material was available to prima facie connect
them with the alleged offence. It was contended that, during the
course of investigation, the name of the petitioner-1 came to be
interpolated into the record solely on the basis of an alleged
association with a mobile phone number purportedly linked to the
conspiracy. It was further submitted that it is alleged that the said
mobile number was utilized by petitioner-1 to orchestrate the
commission of the offence in question. However, no witness
statements, documentary evidence, or identification proceedings
have been brought on record to implicate petitioner-1. Learned
counsel argued that the purported linkage rests merely on
speculative inferences drawn by the Special Operations Group
(SOG).
6. It was further brought to the notice of this Court that,
in the reply furnished by Vardhaman Mahaveer Open University,
Kota, to the RPSC, it was categorically stated that Kamla Kumari
was issued the degree of M.A. (Hindi) only on 20.12.2022.
Therefore, it stands unambiguously established that she was
(Downloaded on 05/07/2025 at 12:25:49 AM)
[2025:RJ-JP:24406] (5 of 11) [CRLMP-1146/2025]
ineligible to be selected for the post in question. Learned counsel
further submitted that, during investigation, the SOG
subsequently included the name of Dalpat Singh, brother of the
accused, who allegedly engaged petitioner-3, wife of petitioner-2,
to impersonate Kamla Kumari as a dummy candidate in
consideration of financial gratification of Rs.10,00,000/- (Rupees
Ten Lakhs Only).
7. In this context, learned counsel urged that, on the date
of the alleged incident i.e., 15.10.2022, petitioner-2 was himself
travelling to a remote location, rendering it highly improbable for
him to have escorted his wife-petitioner-3 to the examination
centre to act as a dummy candidate. It was emphasized that no
call detail records are placed on record to substantiate that
accused-petitioners 2 and 3 were in contact with Dalpat Singh or
Kamla Kumari.
8. Learned counsel for the petitioners, in unison,
contended that the petitioners herein were neither named in the
FIR nor is there any substantial evidence brought on record to
establish their involvement in the alleged offence. It was further
submitted that no witness statements exist to corroborate any of
the imputations leveled against the petitioners. Learned counsel
argued that the petitioners are young individuals whose entire
careers stand imperiled merely by virtue of their names being
included in the charge sheet. In support of their contentions,
reliance was placed upon the ratio passed by the Hon’ble Supreme
Court in State of Andhra Pradesh vs. Chekka Guru Murali
Mohan & Ors., SLP (Crl) No. 2636/2021.
(Downloaded on 05/07/2025 at 12:25:49 AM)
[2025:RJ-JP:24406] (6 of 11) [CRLMP-1146/2025]
SUBMISSIONS BY LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE
RESPONDENTS :
9. Learned counsel for the respondents, assisted by
officials from the SOG, vehemently opposed the submissions
advanced on behalf of the petitioners. It was submitted that
although the petitioners’ names were not initially included in the
FIR, they were incorporated in the charge-sheet only after a
strenuous and thorough investigation. Learned counsel contended
that during the course of the inquiry, the Investigating Authority
established demonstrable links between the petitioners and the
conspiracy, both through physical evidence and digital
correspondence, thereby justifying their inclusion in the charge-
sheet.
10. It was further submitted that the SOG submitted a
comprehensive factual report, confirming that the present case
involves two intertwined criminal activities, namely, the fabrication
of educational documents and impersonation to secure public
employment. Emphasis was placed on the gravity of the offences,
involving forgery under Sections 467, 468, 471 of the Indian Penal
Code and deception by impersonation, thus raising issues of
profound public importance. Learned counsel contended that
permitting the impugned FIR to be quashed at this stage would
not only undermine the integrity of public examinations but also
cast serious prejudice upon all legitimate aspirants, thereby
affecting societal faith in institutional processes.
11. Learned counsel additionally highlighted that the
petitioners, for a considerable period, absconded and withheld
(Downloaded on 05/07/2025 at 12:25:49 AM)
[2025:RJ-JP:24406] (7 of 11) [CRLMP-1146/2025]
cooperation, thus evincing consciousness of guilt. Learned counsel
submitted that intervention at this stage would invariably frustrate
the ongoing criminal process, thereby stifling the ends of justice
and diluting public trust in criminal adjudication.
DISCUSSION AND FINDINGS :
12. Having heard the arguments advanced by the learned
counsel appearing for various parties, taking note of the material
available on record, and upon an assiduous scanning of the factual
report furnished by the Superintendent of Police, SOG, Ajmer, this
Court finds no merit for interference and quashing of the
impugned FIR, as the allegations reveal prima facie cognizable
offences under Sections 467, 468, 471, and 120-B IPC, pertaining
to forgery of educational credentials, impersonation, and
conspiracy which implicate the integrity of the public employment
system. These are grave offences “of public importance”
nevertheless, if the FIRs of such nature if quashed prematurely
would result in abuse of the legal process and prejudice legitimate
aspirants.
13. Furthermore, it is noteworthy that the investigating
agency-SOG conducted an arduous investigation, established links
between accused petitioners and conspiracy, and filed a charge-
sheet. Even though petitioners were not named in the FIR, their
names were justifiably introduced post-investigation, under
safeguards of due process. Their alleged abscondence and non-
cooperation further detracts from any case of malafide
prosecution. It is also pertinent to observe that, upon
investigation, the SOG has prima facie drawn the following
(Downloaded on 05/07/2025 at 12:25:49 AM)
[2025:RJ-JP:24406] (8 of 11) [CRLMP-1146/2025]
conclusions, and only on the basis of the following the charge-
sheet is filed; howsoever, the following being a part of the
investigation is subject to judicial scrutiny which shall be initiated
during trial:
13.1 That during the course of document verification, upon
encountering doubts regarding the authenticity of the marksheet
and degree submitted by the candidate-Kamla Kumari, the
complainant sought clarifications from both the universities
concerned. In response, a certification from Vardhaman Mahavir
Open University, Kota, was received by RPSC confirming that her
academic status as declared in the application “appearing”
rendered her ineligible.
13.2 That upon examination of the call detail records and the
geo-location data of the accused-petitioners vis-à-vis the prime
accused, Kamla Kumari, it is ascertained that the individuals
named in the charge-sheet were in consistent contact with one
another and maintained a reasonable nexus relevant to the
alleged acts.
13.3 That as per the digital video recording retrieved from
the examination centre, it is prima facie established that the
individual who appeared under the identity of the applicant Kamla
Kumari was, in fact, petitioner no. 3.
13.4 That further analysis of communications conducted
through WhatsApp messaging and telephonic conversations
among the persons named in the chargesheet indicates that
petitioner nos. 2 and 3, acting in concert, engaged in
(Downloaded on 05/07/2025 at 12:25:49 AM)
[2025:RJ-JP:24406] (9 of 11) [CRLMP-1146/2025]
impersonation during a public examination in consideration of
monetary gratification.
13.5 That the investigation has also revealed that the
accused-petitioners maintained internal connections with an
individual affiliated with the university concerned, who, for
pecuniary benefit, facilitated the procurement of a fabricated
degree certificate.
14. Accordingly, the present batch of petitions fail the
established test enunciated in Bhajan Lal v. State of Haryana,
AIR 1992 SC 604, which stipulates that only in “rarest of rare
cases” should the extraordinary powers of High Court under the
jurisdiction of section 528 BNSS be exercised; namely when
allegations, even if accepted at face value, do not make out a
cognizable offence, or if registration is with mala fide intent,
collusion or ulterior motive. Here, neither of these conditions is
established. Moreover, the allegations warrant thorough trial.
15. Nonetheless, it is a settled principle of law that quo ad
judex non lapsus meaning that the court intervenes only where
process is abused, and not in ordinary manner. Moreover, Apex
Court in the State of Maharashtra and Ors. Vs. Maroti:
Criminal Appeal No, 1874/2022 [Arising out of SLP (Crl.)
No. 718/2022) has categorically held as follows:
“1. Exercise of power Under Section 482 Code of
Criminal Procedure is an exception and not the Rule
and it is to be exercised ex debito justitiae to do real
and substantial justice for the administration of
which alone Courts exist.
(Downloaded on 05/07/2025 at 12:25:49 AM)
[2025:RJ-JP:24406] (10 of 11) [CRLMP-1146/2025]
2. If FIR and the materials collected disclose a
cognizable offense and the final report filed Under
Section 173(2), Code of Criminal Procedure on
completion of investigation based on it would reveal
that the ingredients to constitute an offence under
the POCSO Act and a prima facie case against the
persons named therein as Accused, the truthfulness,
sufficiency or admissibility of the evidence are not
matters falling within the purview of exercise of
power Under Section 482 Code of Criminal Procedure
and undoubtedly they are matters to be done by the
Trial Court at the time of trial.
3. The impugned judgment resulting in quashing of
the stated FIR and the charge-sheet throttling the
prosecution at the threshold, without allowing the
materials in support of it to see the light of the day,
cannot be said to be as an exercise done to secure
interests of justice whereas it can only be stated that
such exercise resulted in miscarriage of justice.”
16. Reliance can also be placed upon the ratio encapsulated
in Ramveer Upadhyay and Anr. Vs. State of U.P.: SLP (Crl)
No. 2953/2022 and Central Bureau of Investigation Vs.
Aryan Singh: 2023 SCC OnLine SC 379.
17. In light of the foregoing, this Court finds that the
petitioners have failed to advance any tenable ground for quashing
the FIR or charge-sheet. The findings recorded by the Special
Operations Group (SOG), based on documentary evidence,
forensic scrutiny, electronic communications, geo-location data,
and visual records, collectively substantiate a prima facie case
against the petitioners, encompassing offences of forgery,
impersonation, and criminal conspiracy, all of which are of
(Downloaded on 05/07/2025 at 12:25:49 AM)
[2025:RJ-JP:24406] (11 of 11) [CRLMP-1146/2025]
substantial public importance. Instead, the Court reiterates that
the proceedings must advance to full adjudication at trial, thereby
safeguarding the public interest and maintaining confidence in the
integrity of public examinations.
18. Consequently, the petitioners are hereby directed to
extend their full cooperation with the ongoing investigation. In the
absence of any substance in their submissions, the present
petitions are dismissed in limine for want of merit. Pending
applications, if any, stand disposed of accordingly.
(SAMEER JAIN),J
Preeti Asopa
(Downloaded on 05/07/2025 at 12:25:49 AM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)