Supreme Court Restores Complaint Alleging Fake Caste Certificate; Directs Trial Within One Year

A bench of Justices B.V. Nagarathna and K.V. Viswanathan heard appeals against an order of the Madhya Pradesh High Court, Gwalior Bench, which had quashed a criminal complaint alleging forgery, cheating and criminal conspiracy in procuring a Scheduled Caste certificate used to contest a reserved Assembly seat. The appeals arose from Criminal Appeal No.1222 of 2018 and connected matters in which the complainant challenged the High Court's dismissal of proceedings against certain accused.

The Court allowed the appeals, set aside the High Court order dated 28.06.2016 and restored Criminal Complaint Case No.1072 of 2014 to the file of the Chief Judicial Magistrate First Class, Guna. The Supreme Court held that the High Court impermissibly conducted a "mini trial" and made conjectural findings; the allegations in the complaint and the documentary record were sufficient to show prima facie offences that could not be quashed on demurrer. The Court directed that "the trial shall be proceeded with from that stage" and ordered that the trial be completed expeditiously "in any event within a period of one year from today." The Court, in its reasoning, observed: "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 a demurrer the complaint can be quashed against the said four accused."

Background

The dispute arose from a complaint filed in July 2013 by Komal Prasad Shakya alleging that Rajendra Singh and others had obtained a caste certificate falsely portraying Rajendra Singh as belonging to the Sansi Scheduled Caste in order to contest the 029‑Guna (SC reserved) Assembly constituency. It was alleged that Rajendra Singh, his father Amrik Singh, and several local officials and witnesses conspired, forged panchnamas, affidavits and other documents, and misused office procedures to procure a provisional caste certificate dated 08.08.2008 and thereafter a permanent certificate from the Sub‑Divisional Officer, Guna. The complaint invoked Sections 415, 416, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120B IPC. The Chief Judicial Magistrate took cognizance on 28.05.2014 against four accused; other accused were not proceeded against.

A High Powered Scrutiny Committee later directed forfeiture and cancellation of the caste certificate by an order dated 10.08.2011, recording that the applicant "failed in producing documentary evidence regarding being resident of Madhya Pradesh in 1950" and that "Issuing of Certificate of Sansi Caste by Revenue Officers in illegal manner was found." The Committee recommended disciplinary action against officials and forfeited the certificate; that decision was sustained on challenge up to this Court.

The Madhya Pradesh High Court, while entertaining quash petitions by the accused, analysed evidence at length and concluded that the accused may have acted out of legal illiteracy, that there was no proof of manipulation at the Amritsar Tehsildar's office and that forgery and cheating were not prima facie made out; it quashed the criminal proceedings. The Supreme Court found that the High Court's approach amounted to a dress rehearsal of trial and that several of its findings were conjectural. The Supreme Court emphasised that whether the offences were ultimately made out would depend on evidence at trial and therefore restored the complaint and the order taking cognizance.

The Court directed that the trial proceed from the stage at which it stood before the Magistrate and ordered completion within one year, expressly stating that the trial must be "uninfluenced by the findings of the High Court and this Court in the present proceeding."

Case Details: Case No.: Criminal Appeal No.1222 of 2018; Criminal Appeal Nos.1223‑1224 of 2018 Case Title: Komal Prasad Shakya v. Rajendra Singh and Others; Rakesh Mishra and Anr. v. Rajendra Singh and Others Appearances: For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Anuj Bhandari, Advocate (for the appellant/complainant) For the Respondent(s): Ms. Ruchi Kohli, Senior Advocate (for the accused‑respondents)