Rajasthan High Court – Jodhpur
Kantu Singh vs State Of Rajasthan (2025:Rj-Jd:30780) on 14 July, 2025
Author: Kuldeep Mathur
Bench: Kuldeep Mathur
[2025:RJ-JD:30780]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 4577/2025
Kantu Singh S/o Shri Haliya Damor, Aged About 40 Years, R/o
Bhatamhudi Timeda, Bada Tehsil Kushalgarh, District Banswara.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Pp
2. Mavji S/o Shri Unkar Khat, R/o C95, Mahi
Sarovar ,banswara
----Respondents
Connected With
S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 716/2025
Shivlal Charpota S/o Shri Valu Charpota, Aged About 35 Years,
R/o Khokharwa, Banswara,raj.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
2. Dist. Education Officer (Primary), Banswara
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ashok Upadhyay
Mr. Ramesh Kumar
Mr. Nishant bora
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Narendra Singh, PP
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP MATHUR
Order
14/07/2025
By way of filing the instant criminal misc. petitions under
Section 528 BNSS, the petitioners have prayed for the following
reliefs:-
In S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 4577/2025-
“It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this
petition may kindly be allowed and the impugned FIR
No.187/2024 registered at Police Station Kushalgarh, District
Banswara, may kindly be quashed and set aside.”
(Downloaded on 14/07/2025 at 08:09:17 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:30780] (2 of 5) [CRLMP-4577/2025]
In S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 716/2025-
“It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this
Misc. Petition may kindly be allowed and the entire
subsequent investigation arising out of F.I.R. No.
187/2024 for the offences u/s 419, 420, 467, 468 and
471, of IPC, 66D of IT Act 2008 & section 3, 4 & 6 of
Rajasthan Public Examination (Prevention Of Unfair
Means) Act, 1992 registered at Police Station
Kushalgarh, District Banswara and further proceedings
may kindly be quashed and set aside.”
2. The petitioners are charged with offences punishable under
Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 of IPC, Sections 66-D of
Information Technology Act which provides punishment for
cheating by personation using any communication device or
computer resource as well as Sections 3, 4 and 6 of Rajasthan
Public Examination (Prevention of Unfair Means) Act, 2022.
3. As per the prosecution, the petitioners have sent dummy
candidates in REET Examination in their places and cleared the
same. Thereupon, on the basis of the marks obtained by the
dummy candidates in the REET Examination, the petitioners have
secured appointment on the post of Teacher, Grade III.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that admittedly,
the dummy candidates was/were not apprehended in examination
hall, rather the case has been registered by the investigating
agency against the petitioners after more than five year of their
appointment on the post of Teacher Grade III. Learned counsel
submitted that prior to appointment of the petitioners on the post
of Teacher, they went through D.V. (document verification)
process, and personal interview etc., and therefore, the impugned
FIR lodged against them on the ground that someone else
(Downloaded on 14/07/2025 at 08:09:17 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:30780] (3 of 5) [CRLMP-4577/2025]
(dummy candidates) sat in their places in the REET Examination
by impersonating them deserves to be quashed and set aside by
this Court.
5. This Court looking to the nature of controversy involved in
the present case, directed the learned Public prosecutor to call for
the factual report.
6. In compliance of the order dated 07.07.2025 passed by this
Court, the learned Public Prosecutor has placed on record the
factual report dated 07.07.2025 received by him from the office of
SHO P.S. Kushalgarh, District Banswara.
7. The factual report indicates that police during the course of
investigation has prima facie found that the photographs of the
petitioners on their REET Examination application forms do not
match with the other documents pertaining to educational
qualification submitted by them to the Educational Department.
Further, when the police arrested one Deepak Kumar Parmar in
connection with the impugned FIR, he has verified the place where
the money was exchanged between the parties in his statements
recorded under Section 27 of Indian Evidence Act. Further, the
factual report indicates that the petitioners are not cooperating
with the investigating agency. Thus, prima facie the offences have
been found to be proved against the present petitioners.
8. Heard learned counsel for the parties at Bar. Perused the
material available on record.
9. Having perused the case file and the factual report, this
Court prima facie finds that serious allegations of obtaining
government job by playing fraud, cheating and mischief have been
(Downloaded on 14/07/2025 at 08:09:17 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:30780] (4 of 5) [CRLMP-4577/2025]
levelled against the petitioners. In the opinion of this Court, the
impugned FIRs cannot be quashed or set aside or the investigation
in the matter cannot be stalled merely because the case against
the petitioners is registered after five years of the incident. In the
opinion of this Court, if the petitioners have cleared the REET
Examination which is essential for securing job as Teacher Grade
III by making someone else sit in their place in the examination,
then certainly, the petitioners deserve to face the criminal trial for
the alleged offences. The entire public appointments rests on the
principle of equity in employment and nobody could be permitted
to tinkle with selections by playing fraud and mischief.
10. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of State of
Haryana vs. Bhajan Lal & Ors. reported in 1992 Supp. (1)
SCC 335, has illustrated the situations wherein, the extraordinary
powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India or the
inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. (528 BNSS) can be
exercised by the High Court either to prevent abuse of the process
of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. The
Hon’ble Supreme Court illustrated as under:-
“(a) where the allegations made in the First Information
Report or the complaint, even if they are taken at
their face value and accepted in their entirety do not
prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case
against the accused;
(b) where the allegations in the First Information Report
and other materials, if any, accompanying the F.I.R.
do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an
investigation by police officers under Section 156(1)
of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate
within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code;
(c) where the uncontroverted allegations made in the
FIR or ‘complaint and the evidence collected in
support of the same do not disclose 265 the
(Downloaded on 14/07/2025 at 08:09:17 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:30780] (5 of 5) [CRLMP-4577/2025]
commission of any offence and make out a case
against the accused;
(d) where the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a
cognizable offence but constitute only a non-
cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a
police officer without an order of a Magistrate as
contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code;
(e) where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint
are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis
of which no prudent person can ever reach a just
conclusion that there is sufficient ground for
proceeding against the accused;
(f) where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any
of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act
(under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to
the institution and continuance of the proceedings
and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code
or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress
for the grievance of the aggrieved party;
(g) where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended
with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is
maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for
wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view
to spite him due to private and personal grudge.”
11. In view of aforesaid discussion and taking into consideration
the precedent law, this Court does not find any of the aforesaid
conditions to be prima facie fulfilled in the present case and thus
this Court is not inclined to exercise the powers vested in it under
Section 528 of BNSS for quashing the FIR in question qua the
petitioners.
12. Accordingly, the criminal misc. petitions are dismissed.
13. Stay petitions also stand disposed of accordingly.
14. A copy of this order be placed in each file.
(KULDEEP MATHUR),J
254-255-himanshu/-
(Downloaded on 14/07/2025 at 08:09:17 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)