Rajasthan High Court – Jodhpur
Smt Sabhai vs State And Anr on 7 July, 2026
[2026:RJ-JP:32473] (1 of 10) [CRLMP-452/2018]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
AT JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 452/2018
CNR: RJHC010138872018
URN: CRLMP / 1174U / 2018
Smt. Sabhai W/o Sh. Chenesar Khan, By Caste Sindhi
Musalman, Resident Of Bage Khan-Ki-Dhani, Village Bahala,
Tehsil And District Jaisalmer Raj.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan
2. Ata Moahammed @ Attu Khan S/o Sh. Kadar Bux, By
Caste Sindhi Musalman, Resident Of Kulanion-Ka-Bas,
Village Bahala, Tehsil And District Jaisalmer Raj.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. K.S.Lodha
For Respondent(s) : Mr. V.S.Rajpurohit, PP
Mr. R.S.Bhati, AGA
Mr. L.D.Khatri
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEET PUROHIT
Order
Reportable
07/07/2026
1. Present Criminal Misc. Petition under section 482 CrPC has
been filed by petitioner with a prayer for quashing of the FIR
No.63/2015 dated 10.06.2015 registered at Police Station
Mohangarh, District Jaisalmer for offences punishable under
sections 420, 467, 468, 471 & 120B IPC.
2. The impugned FIR has been lodged on the basis of a
complaint filed by respondent no. 2 mainly with the allegation that
petitioner while contesting election for the post of Sarpanch of
(Uploaded on 23/07/2026 at 05:37:04 PM)
(Downloaded on 24/07/2026 at 08:39:53 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:32473] (2 of 10) [CRLMP-452/2018]
Gram Panchayat, Bahala in 2015, claimed in her nomination
papers to have cleared class 8th in the year
2003 from Mother Teresa Academy Upper primary school, Sikar
and also annexed certificate issued by said school. It was informed
by said school on 01.04.2015 that relevant record in connection
with educational certificate of the petitioner are not available with
them, therefore, said document was alleged to be forged.
It was also alleged that petitioner had not made a true and
complete disclosure regarding her children, as she stated that she
had only two children, whereas, in fact, she has three children.
3. Learned Public Prosecutor while relying upon the Factual
Report submits that investigating agency upon thorough
investigation found petitioner prima facie guilty of offences under
sections 420 and 193 IPC. Moreover, it was also stated that
petitioner was not found guilty of offence under sections 467, 468,
4. Factual report, as submitted by learned Public Prosecutor is
taken on record.
5. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted from bare reading
of allegations contained in the impugned FIR, no case for
commission of cognizable offence is made out and even if the
allegations contained in the impugned FIR are taken as it is, then
also the only offence, which can be made out against the
petitioner is only of furnishing false information/evidence before a
public servant. Such an offence can be prosecuted only in the
manner prescribed by law, and therefore, present FIR, lodged at
the behest of the complainant, is not maintainable.
(Uploaded on 23/07/2026 at 05:37:04 PM)
(Downloaded on 24/07/2026 at 08:39:53 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:32473] (3 of 10) [CRLMP-452/2018]
It is contended that offence of furnishing false
information/evidence while contesting election is a non-cognizable
offence and, therefore, as per sub-section (2) of section 155 CrPC,
the police has no jurisdiction to investigate into the non-
cognizable offences without there being any order from the
Magistrate concerned. Thus, impugned FIR registered against the
petitioner is abuse of process of law and is liable to be quashed
and set aside.
6. Notably, this Court vide order dated 14.02.2018 stayed
further proceedings in relation to impugned FIR.
7. Heard learned counsels for parties and perused the
impugned FIR as well as factual report.
8. As evident from factual report, the Investigating Agency,
upon conducting a detailed investigation, collecting relevant
records from the concerned school and recording the statement of
the Principal, found the mark-sheet in question to be genuine.
Consequently, Investigating Agency did not find any material to
establish prima facie involvement of petitioner in the alleged
offences punishable under Sections 467, 468, 471 and 120-B IPC.
8.1 Even otherwise, in considered opinion of this Court, mark-
sheet cannot be considered as ‘valuable security’ within the
meaning of Section 467 IPC. Hon’ble Madhya Pradesh High Court
in Ghanshyam Patel v State of Madhya Pradesh, Criminal
Revision No. 3829 of 2018 held as follows:
“The Division Bench in the case of Mahendra Kumar Shukla
(supra) has followed the ratio decidendi laid down by the
Apex Court in Shriniwas Pandit Dharmadhikari vs. State of
Maharashtra (1980) 4 SCC 551 and came to hold that
mark-sheet is not a ‘valuable security’ within the
(Uploaded on 23/07/2026 at 05:37:04 PM)
(Downloaded on 24/07/2026 at 08:39:53 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:32473] (4 of 10) [CRLMP-452/2018]meaning of Section 467 of the IPC. I am bound by the
aforesaid judgment and in view of said judgment constraint
to hold that the charge against the applicant under Section
467 of the IPC is not sustainable.”
(emphasis supplied)
8.2 Therefore, in view of the findings recorded during
investigation, which establish the genuineness of the mark-sheet
in question, coupled with the legal position that a mark-sheet does
not constitute a ‘valuable security’ within the meaning of Section
467 IPC, no prima facie case is made out against the petitioner for
offences punishable under Sections 467, 468, 471 and 120-B IPC.
9. A further perusal of factual report reveals that petitioner has
been found prima facie guilty for offences under Sections 420 and
193 IPC on the allegation that she furnished false information or
made an incorrect disclosure regarding the number of her children
while contesting the election. However, in considered opinion of
this Court, even if the allegations contained in the FIR are
accepted in their entirety, essential ingredients of the aforesaid
offences are not satisfied and therefore no offence under Sections
420 or 193 IPC is made out against the petitioner.
9.1 For ready reference, Section 420 IPC is reproduced herein
below:
“420. Cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of
property.–Whoever cheats and thereby dishonestly induces
the person deceived to deliver any property to any person,
or to make, alter or destroy the whole or any part of a
valuable security, or anything which is signed or sealed, and
which is capable of being converted into a valuable security,
shall be punished with imprisonment of either description
for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also
be liable to fine.”
9.2 A plain reading of aforesaid provision makes it evident that,
to constitute an offence under Section 420 IPC, there must be
deception on the part of the accused coupled with dishonest or
(Uploaded on 23/07/2026 at 05:37:04 PM)
(Downloaded on 24/07/2026 at 08:39:53 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:32473] (5 of 10) [CRLMP-452/2018]
fraudulent inducement, resulting in the delivery of property or the
making, alteration or destruction of a valuable security.
9.3 In the present case, material collected during the course of
investigation does not reveal any act of deception, fraudulent
representation, or dishonest inducement on the part of petitioner
so as to attract the provisions of Section 420 IPC. The allegation
against the petitioner is confined to furnishing incorrect
information regarding the number of her children while contesting
the election. Even if such allegation is assumed to be true, the
same does not disclose that any person was dishonestly induced
to deliver any property, nor does it suggest that any valuable
security was made, altered, or destroyed on account of such
representation.
There is no material on record indicating that any property or
valuable security changed hands as a consequence of any alleged
deception by the petitioner. Therefore, taking the allegations
contained in the FIR at their face value, the fundamental
ingredients constituting an offence under Section 420 IPC are
conspicuously absent. As such, continuation of criminal
proceedings against the petitioner for the said offence is wholly
unsustainable in law.
10. Moreover, a plain reading of Section 193 IPC makes it
evident that offence contemplated thereunder is attracted only
when a person intentionally gives false evidence or fabricates false
evidence in relation to a judicial proceeding or for the purpose of
being used in a judicial proceeding. Thus, the existence of a
judicial proceeding and the nexus of the alleged false evidence
(Uploaded on 23/07/2026 at 05:37:04 PM)
(Downloaded on 24/07/2026 at 08:39:53 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:32473] (6 of 10) [CRLMP-452/2018]
with such proceeding constitute essential ingredients of the
offence. For ready reference, Section 193 IPC is reproduced herein
below:
“193. Punishment for false evidence.–Whoever
intentionally gives false evidence in any stage of a judicial
proceeding, or fabricates false evidence for the purpose of
being used in any stage of a judicial proceeding, shall be
punished with imprisonment of either description for a term
which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to
fine, and whoever intentionally gives or fabricates false
evidence in any other case, shall be punished with
imprisonment of either description for a term which may
extend to three years, and shall also be liable to fine.”
10.1 In the present case, allegation against petitioner pertains to
an allegedly incorrect disclosure made while contesting an
election. Such disclosure cannot, by any stretch of imagination, be
construed as evidence given in the course of a judicial proceeding
or as evidence fabricated for use in a judicial proceeding.
Consequently, even if the allegations contained in the complaint
are accepted at their face value, the basic ingredients necessary
to constitute an offence under Section 193 IPC are conspicuously
absent. Therefore, invocation of said provision against the
petitioner appears to be wholly misconceived.
10.2 Moreover, offence punishable under Section 193 IPC is non-
cognizable in nature. Therefore, in view of Section 155(2) Cr.P.C.,
no police officer is competent to investigate the said offence
without an order of jurisdictional Magistrate authorizing such
investigation. Further, Section 195(1)(b)(i) Cr.P.C. imposes a
specific bar on taking of cognizance of an offence under Section
193 IPC except upon a complaint in writing made by the Court
concerned, or by an officer duly authorized by it in that behalf.
Therefore, even if the allegations contained in the impugned FIR
(Uploaded on 23/07/2026 at 05:37:04 PM)
(Downloaded on 24/07/2026 at 08:39:53 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:32473] (7 of 10) [CRLMP-452/2018]
are accepted in their entirety, the present FIR, lodged at the
instance of the complainant, is not maintainable in the eyes of
law.
11. This Hon’ble High Court in Prithvi Singh v. State of
Rajasthan, 2016 SCC OnLine Raj 5786 while dealing with
similar set of facts, held as follows:
“7. For the offence of cheating, there should be an averment
in the complaint that the accused by using fraudulent means
induces a person so cheated to deliver some valuable
security etc.
8. From bare reading of the impugned FIR, it is clear that
there is no averment to the effect that the accused by using
fraudulent means induces the complainant or any person so
cheated to deliver some valuable security etc. Hence, the
offence punishable under section 420 IPC cannot be said to
be made out from allegations contained in the impugned FIR.
9. It is noticed that in the impugned FIR, there is no
allegation to the effect that the petitioner has prepared a
false document and used it as a genuine one. The main
allegation in the impugned FIR against the accused is to the
effect that he has furnished false declaration regarding his
children in the nomination form and on the basis of which, he
has contested the election though he was not qualified to do
so. Furnishing false information before a public servant
cannot be equated with the execution of a false
document. If what is executed is not a false document,
there is no forgery and if there is no forgery, then no
offence under the provisions of sections under
sections 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC is made out.
10. The Hon’ble Supreme Court
in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 SCC (Cri) 42 has
held as under:
“102. In the backdrop of the interpretation of the
various relevant provisions of the Code under Chapter
XIV and of the principles of law enunciated by this
Court in a series of decisions relating to the
exercise of the extra-ordinary power under Article 226
or the inherent powers Under Section 482 of the Code
which we have extracted and reproduced above, we
give the following categories of cases by
way of illustration wherein such power could be
exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of any
Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice,
though it may not be possible to lay down any precise,
clearly defined and sufficiently channelised and
(Uploaded on 23/07/2026 at 05:37:04 PM)
(Downloaded on 24/07/2026 at 08:39:53 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:32473] (8 of 10) [CRLMP-452/2018]inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an
exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein such
power should be exercised.
(1) 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.
(2) 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.
(3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the
FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in
support of the same do not disclose the
commission of any offence and make out a case
against the accused.
(4) Where, the allegations in the F.I.R. 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.
(5) 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.
(6) 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.
(7) 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 the above referred judgment, the Hon’ble Supreme
Court in sub paras (2) and (4) of para No. 102 has held that
where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a
cognizable offence but constitute only a noncognizable
offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer
without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated Under
Section 155(2) of the Code, then the FIR can be quashed.
(Uploaded on 23/07/2026 at 05:37:04 PM)
(Downloaded on 24/07/2026 at 08:39:53 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:32473] (9 of 10) [CRLMP-452/2018]
12. Upon perusal of the impugned FIR, it is apparent that
the main allegation of the complainant in the impugned FIR
is to the effect that the accused-person has furnished false
information or has not furnished correct information
regarding his children while contesting the election. If the
said allegations of the complainant are accepted to be true
then too, the offence, which at best can be said to be
committed by the accused would be of making statement in
connection with an election which is punishable under section
171-G IPC or furnishing false information to any public
servant punishable under section 177 IPC or the offences
punishable under sections 181, 193, 199 and 200 IPC.
However, all the above mentioned offences are non-
cognizable offences. As per the provisions of sub-section
(2) of section 155 CrPC, a Police Officer cannot investigate
into the allegations of non-cognizable offence without any
order of the Magistrate having power to try such case or
commit the case for trial, however, no such order of the
Magistrate concerned is available on record.
13. In view of the above discussions, this Court is of the
opinion that the impugned FIR is liable to be quashed.”
(emphasis supplied)
12. Moreover, this Hon’ble High Court in Ridha Ram Saran v
State of Rajasthan; S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No.
3249/2015 held as follows:
“4. After hearing the counsel for the parties as well as
perusing the record of the case along with the precedent
law cited, in the opinion of this Court, it is absolutely clear
that the allegation made in the FIR did not disclose any
cognizable offence and at the most, the remedy available to
the complainant was to challenge the election at the
appropriate forum rather than filing of FIR. This Court is of
the opinion that wrong facts in nomination paper to
escape the disqualification pertaining to third child
cannot be considered so as to constitute offence of
cheating. Even if the offence was covered by the Section
171 of IPC which is furnishing false information before the
public servant then the same can be pursued as an offence
by the concerned officer or the concerned public servant as
prosecution by other persons would be barred by Section
195(1) (a) of Cr.P.C. Thus from the precedent law cited
above it is clear that even if the allegations are admitted,
there is no material on the basis of which it can be
concluded that the petitioner had committed any offence
under Sections 197, 198, 199, 465, 466, 471 & 120-B of
IPC. Thus on the basis of the aforesaid discussion as well as
the precedent law submitted by the counsel for the
petitioner, the Miscellaneous Petition is allowed and FIR No.
(Uploaded on 23/07/2026 at 05:37:04 PM)
(Downloaded on 24/07/2026 at 08:39:53 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:32473] (10 of 10) [CRLMP-452/2018]34/2015 registered at Police Station Parvatsar, District
Nagaur for the offence under Sections 197, 198, 199, 465,
466, 471 & 120-B of IPC is quashed and set aside.”
(emphasis supplied)
13. Thus, in view of the foregoing discussion and judicial
precedents referred to hereinabove, it is evident that no material
is available on record to prima facie establish the commission of
offences under Sections 420 and 193 IPC by the petitioner.
Furthermore, impugned FIR, lodged at the instance of the
complainant alleging the aforesaid offences, is not maintainable.
14. Consequently, instant criminal misc. petition is allowed and
impugned FIR No.63/2015 dated 10.06.2015 lodged at Police
Station Mohangarh, District Jaisalmer and all consequential
proceedings arising therefrom are hereby quashed.
15. Stay petition and other pending applications, if any, stand
disposed of.
(SANJEET PUROHIT),J
166/Yagya Solanki/688
(Uploaded on 23/07/2026 at 05:37:04 PM)
(Downloaded on 24/07/2026 at 08:39:53 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
