AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Since the present petitions, filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, arise out of the same proceedings, they are being decided by this common order.
The S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 8827/2026 has been preferred aggrieved of the order dated 30.06.2026 passed by the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate No.1, Jodhpur Metropolitan in Original Criminal Case No. 112/2025, whereby the application filed by the petitioner under Section 258 Cr.P.C. was dismissed and it was observed that prima facie offences punishable under Sections 465 and 471 IPC are made out against him, as well as the order dated 12.08.2026 passed by the learned Appellate Rent Tribunal, Jodhpur Metropolitan, in Criminal Revision No.321/2026, whereby the revision petition preferred against the aforesaid order was dismissed and the order dated 30.06.2026 was affirmed.
The S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 6939/2023 has been preferred aggrieved of the order dated 31.01.2018 passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Jodhpur Metropolitan in Criminal Case No. 155/2012 (4730/2015), whereby cognizance was taken against the petitioner under Sections 465 and 471 IPC, as well as the order dated 19.07.2023 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge No.6, Jodhpur Metropolitan, in Criminal Revision No.260/2018, whereby the revision petition preferred against the aforesaid order was dismissed and the order dated 31.01.2018 was affirmed.
The facts of the case, as narrated by the petitioner, are that on 01.10.2007, the respondent no.2 - complainant submitted a complaint alleging that the petitioner had prepared and produced a false document relating to an accident with a view to getting his evidence opened in Civil Case No. 473/95 (206/94) (Sushil Kumar Vs. Balveer Kumar & Ors.), pending before learned Additional Civil Judge No.6, Jodhpur. The complaint was forwarded to Police Station Udaimandir under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., pursuant to which FIR was registered on 10.10.2007.
After investigation, the police submitted a negative final report. The complainant filed an application under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C. seeking further investigation. The said application was dismissed and the final report was accepted by the learned trial Court vide order dated 07.12.2007. Aggrieved by the said order, the complainant preferred a revision petition which was allowed vide order dated 21.07.2008 and direction was issued for further investigation.
The petitioner thereafter approached this Court by filing S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No.996/2008, which was allowed vide order dated 07.01.2009. This Court set aside the order dated 21.07.2008 and directed the Revisional Court to hear the parties afresh and pass an order in accordance with law. Thereafter, the petitioner was impleaded as a respondent in the revision petition and, after hearing the parties, the Revisional Court, vide order dated 19.12.2011, again set aside the order of the trial Court and directed further investigation.
Pursuant to the aforesaid order, the Investigating Officer submitted a charge-sheet on 25.05.2012 for offences punishable under Sections 465 and 471 IPC before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate No.3, Jodhpur Metropolitan. On the same day, the complainant filed an application under Section 190 Cr.P.C. seeking cognizance for offences under Sections 420, 468 and 193 IPC also. During pendency of the said application, the complainant filed another application under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C. on 22.08.2012, seeking further investigation and a direction to the Investigating Officer to submit a charge-sheet under the appropriate provisions of law. The said application was dismissed by the trial Court vide order dated 13.09.2013. Prior thereto, on 09.04.2013, the complainant had not pressed his application dated 25.05.2012 filed under Section 190 Cr.P.C., with liberty.
The complainant challenged the order dated 13.09.2013 by way of a revision petition, which came to be dismissed on 21.11.2014. Thereafter, on 27.04.2015, the complainant filed another application under Section 190 Cr.P.C. which was dismissed vide order dated 31.01.2018, and cognizance was taken against the petitioner for offences punishable under Sections 465 and 471 IPC.
Aggrieved by the taking of cognizance vide the order dated 31.01.2018, the petitioner preferred a revision petition which was dismissed vide order dated 19.07.2023. Against the aforesaid orders, the petitioner preferred S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No. 6939/2023, which is part of this bunch.
Subsequently, upon inspection of the record of the trial Court, the petitioner noticed that the affidavit of the complainant and the representation of the accused, though referred to in the charge-sheet, had not been placed on record. The petitioner accordingly moved an application seeking production of the said documents. The prosecution subsequently stated that the originals were missing and produced photocopies thereof on the record.
Thereafter, the petitioner filed an application under Section 258 Cr.P.C. seeking discharge from the alleged offences. After hearing the parties, the trial Court dismissed the said application vide order dated 30.06.2026, observing that prima facie offences punishable under Sections 465 and 471 IPC are made out against the petitioner.
Aggrieved by the order dated 30.06.2026, the petitioner preferred a revision petition before the learned Court of Sessions, Jodhpur Metropolitan, which was subsequently transferred to the Appellate Rent Tribunal, Jodhpur Metropolitan. The Revisional Court, vide order dated 12.08.2026, dismissed the revision petition and upheld the order dated 30.06.2026 passed by the trial Court. Against the aforesaid orders, the petitioner preferred S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No. 8827/2026, which is part of this bunch.
Learned counsel for the petitioner, while arguing the petition, made the following submissions:-
The petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case and that the proceedings have been initiated with an oblique motive to prejudice the petitioner in relation to his civil cause. Even if the allegations contained in the charge-sheet and the documents relied upon by the prosecution, including the affidavit of the complainant and the representation of the accused submitted during investigation, are taken at their face value, the essential ingredients of the offences alleged against the petitioner are not made out.
The trial Court and Revisional Court failed to appreciate that the necessary ingredients of “forgery”, as defined under Section 463 IPC, are conspicuously absent. The proceedings and relevant orders passed by the Civil Court, before which the alleged medical certificate was produced, demonstrate that the objections raised with regard to the said certificate were considered by the Civil Court and, thereafter, the evidence of the petitioner was directed to be opened. The material on record does not disclose the requisite intention on the part of the petitioner so as to constitute an offence of forgery.
The complainant himself, in his additional affidavit on oath, has not attributed any knowledge of the alleged forgery to the petitioner. Rather, the complainant's own version suggests that the certificate was forged by some other person namely Mohd. Aslam and that the petitioner was used for the purpose of producing the same before the Court. There is no material on record to demonstrate that the petitioner either knew or had reason to believe that the certificate was false or forged. Thus, the finding of the Courts below in this regard, is not supported by any material or evidence available on record.
The complainant had himself made inconsistent statements regarding the whereabouts of the petitioner on the relevant date, namely, whether the petitioner was at Jodhpur or at village Uttarlai, Barmer. Such inconsistent statements cast doubt upon the complainant's version and that, subsequently, no adverse statement against the petitioner was made by the complainant in his additional statement on oath. The surrounding circumstances, therefore, did not justify the conclusion that the petitioner had knowledge of the alleged forgery or had participated in the same.
There is no material on record to establish that the petitioner had not met with an accident at Ahmedabad on the relevant date. According to learned counsel, mere allegation of forgery of the certificate, without establishing the requisite intention or knowledge on the part of the petitioner, cannot constitute an offence under Sections 463, 465 or 471 IPC. The essential ingredients of the aforesaid offences are, therefore, not satisfied in the present case.
The impugned orders do not disclose any specific material demonstrating that the petitioner either committed forgery or knowingly used a forged document as genuine. The mere fact that the petitioner had agreed to pay a sum of Rs.2,000/- towards the doctor's travelling expenses to Jodhpur Court cannot, by itself, establish either the commission of forgery or knowledge regarding the alleged forged nature of the document.
The learned Civil Court, before which the alleged forged certificate was produced, had considered the objections raised by the complainant in relation to the said certificate and had thereafter ordered opening of the petitioner's evidence. The circumstances of the case do not disclose the requisite intention or injury contemplated under Section 463 IPC and, consequently, the offence under Section 465 IPC also cannot be said to have been prima facie established.
The petitioner has been facing the present criminal proceedings since the year 2007 and that continuation of the proceedings, in the absence of the basic ingredients of the alleged offences, would result in unnecessary prolongation of the litigation.
The Revisional Court has erroneously observed that the application preferred by the petitioner under Section 258 Cr.P.C. was not maintainable on the premise that the present case is a warrant case. Rather, the present case is, in fact, a summons case, as the offences under Sections 465 and 471 IPC are not punishable with imprisonment exceeding two years.
In view of the submissions made above, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the impugned orders dated 31.01.2018, 19.07.2023, 30.06.2026 and 12.08.2026 deserve to be set aside and the proceedings against the petitioner may be quashed in the interest of justice.
Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor, while opposing the present petition, submitted that the trial Court, after examining the material available on record, has rightly found a prima facie case against the petitioner for the offences punishable under Sections 465 and 471 IPC. The petitioner himself relied upon and produced the medical certificate before the Civil Court along with an application under Section 151 CPC and an affidavit, claiming that he had remained under treatment at Ahmedabad from 17.05.2007 to 21.05.2007 on account of an accident.
He further submitted that the impugned orders dated 31.01.2018, 19.07.2023, 30.06.2026 and 12.08.2026 do not suffer from any jurisdictional error or perversity warranting interference in exercise of the inherent jurisdiction of this Court. The petitioner’s plea regarding absence of knowledge and mens rea raises matters of evidence which ought to be adjudicated during trial. The present petition, therefore, deserves to be dismissed.
Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.
Before adverting to the rival submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties, it would be apposite to refer to the provisions of Section 258 Cr.P.C., under which the application in question was preferred by the petitioner and came to be dismissed by the trial Court vide order dated 30.06.2026. The said provision reads as under:-
“258. Power to stop proceedings in certain cases.
In any summons-case instituted otherwise than upon complaint, a Magistrate of the first class or, with the previous sanction of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, any other Judicial Magistrate, may, for reasons to be recorded by him, stop the proceedings at any stage without pronouncing any judgment and where such stoppage of proceedings is made after the evidence of the principal witnesses has been recorded, pronounce a judgment of acquittal, and in any other case, release the accused, and such release shall have the effect of discharge.”
Considering the above provision, this Court is of the opinion that so far as the application under Section 258 Cr.P.C. is concerned, it was rightly dismissed. The power under Section 258 Cr.P.C., even assuming its applicability, cannot be invoked as a matter of right for terminating proceedings where the material on record discloses a prima facie case requiring adjudication. In the present case, the trial Court has already considered the material relied upon by the petitioner and has found that the allegations under Sections 465 and 471 IPC are prima facie made out. Further, the Revisional Court has independently examined the contentions raised by the petitioner and has found no illegality, irregularity or error of law in the order dated 30.06.2026 passed by the trial Court. The findings recorded by the trial Court are based upon the material collected during investigation and the petitioner’s own explanation regarding procurement of the medical certificate.
During investigation, the genuineness of the said medical certificate was specifically examined. The Investigating Officer found that at the address mentioned in the certificate, neither any such hospital was situated nor was Dr. R.S. Bhatia residing there. The person residing at the said address was stated to be one Kulbhushan, who had been residing there for the preceding several years. Further, information obtained from Chirayu Orthopedic and Spine Hospital disclosed that no doctor by the name of Dr. R.S. Bhatia was associated with the hospital, no medical certificate had been issued by the hospital in favour of the petitioner, and no person by the name of Sushil Agrawal had been admitted in the hospital during the relevant period. Therefore, the material collected during investigation was not merely in the nature of a bare allegation, but consisted of specific circumstances directly bearing upon the genuineness of the medical certificate relied upon by the petitioner. These circumstances are sufficient to give rise to a strong prima facie suspicion regarding the document being forged and fabricated.
So far as the petitioner’s contention that he had no knowledge that the medical certificate was forged is concerned, the said contention cannot be conclusively accepted at the stage of cognizance. The petitioner’s own detailed representation, relied upon by him in support of his defence, records that he came to know that the doctor who had allegedly treated him was unwilling to provide a certificate and that, thereafter, his acquaintance Lucky Bhatia informed him that a person having close relations with the doctor could arrange the certificate for an amount of Rs.2,000/-. The petitioner admittedly paid the said amount and thereafter received the certificate, which was subsequently used before the Civil Court. These circumstances, when considered along with the material collected during investigation regarding the non-existence of the concerned doctor and the hospital at the particulars mentioned in the certificate, cannot be brushed aside at the threshold. Whether the petitioner actually knew, or had reason to believe, that the document was forged is a matter which requires appreciation of the evidence and cannot be conclusively determined on the basis of the petitioner’s own explanation at this stage.
The fact that the petitioner may not himself have physically prepared or forged the medical certificate does not, by itself, absolve him of the offence punishable under Section 471 IPC. The allegation under Section 471 IPC concerns the use of a forged document as genuine with the requisite knowledge or reason to believe regarding its forged character. Thus, the question whether the petitioner himself prepared the document is distinct from the question whether he knowingly or having reason to believe the document to be forged, used it as genuine before the Civil Court. The statement / affidavit of the complainant relied upon by the petitioner, wherein it was stated that Mohammed Aslam and Smt. Reshma Bano had allegedly prepared the forged medical certificate and supplied the same to the petitioner, does not by itself exonerate the petitioner. On the contrary, even according to the said version, the disputed document was ultimately received by the petitioner and was thereafter produced by him before the Civil Court. The effect and evidentiary value of the said statement, as also the petitioner’s explanation regarding the circumstances in which the document was obtained and produced, are matters to be considered upon appreciation of evidence.
The trial Court has specifically considered the petitioner’s defence that he had suffered an accident at Ahmedabad, had received treatment there and had thereafter obtained the medical certificate through Lucky Bhatia. The trial Court, however, upon considering the petitioner’s own version in conjunction with the material collected during investigation, found that the circumstances were sufficient to prima facie constitute the offences under Sections 465 and 471 IPC. The petitioner cannot seek termination of the criminal proceedings merely by relying upon one portion of the material favourable to him while ignoring the circumstances emerging from the investigation. The Investigating Officer had examined the genuineness of the certificate and the trial Court, after considering the material placed before it, recorded a prima facie finding that the document was forged and that the petitioner’s use thereof attracted Section 471 IPC.
The orders made in the civil proceedings relied upon by the petitioner also do not determine the genuineness of the medical certificate or the petitioner’s criminal liability. The fact that the document was accepted for the purpose of reopening evidence in the civil proceedings cannot, by itself, preclude subsequent examination of the document in criminal investigation.
In view of the discussion made above, this Court is of the firm opinion that the trial court rightly dismissed the application filed by the petitioner under Section 258 Cr.P.C. When sufficient material was available before the trial court to adjudicate the genuineness of the medical certificate, coupled with certain undisputed facts at the behest of the petitioner indicating the prima facie involvement of the petitioner in procuring the medical certificate, then the trial court was justified in observing that the proceedings could not be closed by discharging the petitioner.
This Court, on perusal of the impugned order dated 12.08.2026 passed by the Revisional court, is satisfied that the matter has been examined on its merit, irrespective of the applicability / non-applicability of Section 258 Cr.P.C. In view thereof, this Court finds no ground to interfere with the said impugned order.
So far as impugned order dated 31.01.2018 is concerned, whereby cognizance was taken against the petitioner, this Court in view of the discussion made above is of the opinion that there was sufficient material available before the trial Court to take cognizance and finds on infirmity in the said order. Similarly, on the same ground, the order dated 19.07.2023 passed by the Revisional Court, affirming the order dated 31.01.2018, does not warrant any interference.
As an upshot of the above discussion, the present misc. petitions are dismissed being devoid of merit.
Pending application(s), if any, stand(s) disposed of.