[2025:RJ-JP:44054] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No.4627/2015 Sunil Bansal S/o Sita Ram Bansal, R/o House No.2030, Gali No.4 Rampura Mohalla, Hissar (Haryana). ----Accused-Petitioner Versus 1. State of Rajasthan through Public Prosecutor. 2. Arjun Singh, Dy. S.P., Rajasthan State Anti Corruption Bureau, Camp, Jaipur. ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. A. K. Gupta, Sr. Advocate assisted by Mr. Rinesh Gupta, Mr. Saurabh Pratap Singh Chouhan, Mr. Gaurav Sharma & Mr. Ashutosh Singh Naruka For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vivek Choudhary, PP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND SHARMA Order 03/11/2025 1. Although, today the matter is listed on application for vacation of stay order dated 16.09.2015, yet with the consent of the parties, it was heard finally. 2. Petitioner has filed the instant Criminal Miscellaneous Petition with a prayer to quash and set aside the FIR No.173/1997 registered at Police Station-Rajasthan State Investigation Bureau, Jaipur, for the offence under Sections 13(1)(d) & 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short, 'the Act of 1988') and also under Sections 420, 468, 471 & 120B of IPC as well as the charge-sheet later on filed under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C., as [2025:RJ-JP:44054] (2 of 15) [CRLMP-4627/2015] well as all subsequent orders were also prayed to be quashed and set aside. 3. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that bare perusal of the FIR would not make out any cognizable offence against the petitioner. Although, the FIR has been lodged under Sections 13(1)(d) & 13(2) of the Act of 1988 and Sections 467, 468, 471 & 120B of IPC, yet there is no specific allegation to bring the conduct of the petitioner within the four corners of the aforesaid provisions. 4. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner also submits that bare perusal of the FIR would reveal that the sole case of the prosecution is that vide order dated 13.06.1997 issued by the Controller of Examination, University of Rajasthan, one Committee of Mr. Prabhakar Shashtri was constituted and the Committee submitted its report on 09.06.1997. As per report of the Committee as well as letter of the Controller of Examination, University of Rajasthan, in order to extend undue benefit to some of the students of L.L.B. IIIrd Year (Main) Examination, 1995 studying in M.K. Saboo College, Pilani Centre, changes were made in the answer-books. On the basis of report of the Committee, inquiry was conducted and it was found that one letter was written by the then President of Student Union of University's Law College on his letter-pad to the Vice Chancellor of the University of Rajasthan that he was about to send certain documents to Pilani of 'Paniharin' function, therefore, authority be given to the messenger Sh. Bheewaram Devasi, Clerk that he would also bring the answer-sheets of law classes examination, Pilani College with him. Thereupon, the Vice Chancellor of the University of Rajasthan [2025:RJ-JP:44054] (3 of 15) [CRLMP-4627/2015] issued order dated 09.01.1996 on the letter itself by putting endorsement that "Depute him and pay T.A./D.A. as per Rules on official duty". Such letter was further marked to Registrar and then to Dy. Registrar and Assistant-Registrar in turn. Although, no official letter was issued by the University to the Principal of Saboo College, Pilani, however, Sh. Bheewaram Devasi went to Pilani on the basis of such letter initially authored by the then President, Student Law Union and duly endorsed and marked by Vice Chancellor, Registrar and others and received 18 packets of answer-books on 10.01.1996 from the Superintendent of the Centre at Pilani after giving the letter to the Principal of the College and on 11.01.1996 all such answer-sheets were deposited in the Cellar Section of the University. On declaration of result, certain complaints were received by the aggrieved students with regard to change of answer-sheets and inquiry was demanded. Inquiry Committee comprising of four members was constituted and after inquiry, it was found that some of the pages in some of the answer-sheets were changed. 5. It is pointed out by the learned Senior Counsel that as per FIR, some papers in answer-sheet of petitioner having Roll No.10302 were found missing and the Inquiry Committee found that the students including petitioner along with Rohit Kumar, Rajesh & Sharvan Kumar were guilty for such act. As per FIR, the then President, Student Law Union misused his position and unauthorizedly interfered in the confidential work of examination and maliciously managed Sh. Bheewaram Devasi, L.D.C. for getting the answer-sheets from M.K. Saboo College, Pilani, whereas Sh. Bheewaram Devasi has never worked in Secrecy [2025:RJ-JP:44054] (4 of 15) [CRLMP-4627/2015] Section of University and in such process serious irregularities were committed, hence, FIR under Sections 13(1)(d) & 13 (2) of the Act of 1988 and Sections 420, 468, 471 & 120B of IPC was lodged. 6. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner further submits that as per face value of the FIR the petitioner was not at all involved in any such misdeed as alleged in the FIR and as the result was declared by the University on 28.02.1995, where he has been shown as passed and such result of the petitioner was never withdrawn or cancelled subsequently by the University of Rajasthan. 7. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner also submits that the petitioner was not having any knowledge with regard to lodging of such case, however, without contacting the petitioner and without conducting any investigation from him, the police authorities filed charge-sheet against Sh. Bheewaram Devasi, L.D.C., University of Rajasthan and Rajesh Kumar, whereas the investigation was kept pending against the petitioner- Mr. Sunil Bansal and Mr. Sharvan Kumar under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C.. 8. The conclusion of the investigation has been placed on record by the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner as Annexure-3 and such conclusion shows that although the very basis of charge-sheet and FIR was one alleged letter issued by the then President, Student Union, for sending Sh. Bheewaram Devasi for getting the answer-sheet, which was duly endorsed by the Vice Chancellor of University with directions and further marked by the Registrar, Dy. Registrar and Asst. Registrar authorizing Sh. [2025:RJ-JP:44054] (5 of 15) [CRLMP-4627/2015] Bheewaram Devasi, yet such letter was never recovered and the Investigating Officer came to the conclusion that original copy of such letter was not available. Hence, no investigation whatsoever was conducted from the then President, Student Law Union on account of there being no evidence against him. 9. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner would also submit that either in FIR or in the conclusion of investigation, no overt act whatsoever has been shown against the petitioner and the only allegation levelled against the petitioner is that he was beneficiary of the misdeed and irregularities committed by Sh. Bheewaram Devasi, the then President of Student Law Union, the then officers of the University such as Vice Chancellor, Registrar, Dy. Registrar, Asst. Registrar and Principal of the Pilani College & Centre Superintendent and others. 10. While referring the provisions of Section 13(1)(d) of the Act of 1988, learned Senior Counsel submits that the provisions of Section 13(1)(d) are applicable only in respect of public servant and admittedly the petitioner does not fall within the definition of public servant. Learned Senior Counsel also pointed out that there are no allegations of either committing forgery by the petitioner or even of committing cheating, therefore, implicating the petitioner for offences under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 & 120B of IPC is not tenable in the eye of law and since there are no specific allegations of committing criminal conspiracy, therefore, provisions of Section 120B of IPC are also not attracted. 11. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner relied upon the judgment of Ramesh Balkrishna Kulkarni Vs. State of Maharashtra reported in AIR 1985 SC 1655 as well as [2025:RJ-JP:44054] (6 of 15) [CRLMP-4627/2015] the judgment of Sheila Sebastian Vs. R. Jawaharaj & Anr. reported in 2018 (7) SCC 581. 12. Learned Public Prosecutor opposed the present Criminal Miscellaneous Petition and submitted that investigation against the petitioner could not be completed and the challan against others has been filed and the investigation is yet to be conducted with the petitioner. It has been pointed out by the learned Public Prosecutor that the Committee constituted for examining the allegations of change of answer-sheets has found that some of the papers from the answer-sheets of petitioner were changed. 13. Learned Public Prosecutor also indicated the contents of the FIR as well as the conclusion of investigation to show that clerk of the University of Rajasthan, Sh. Bheewaram Devasi, got the answer-sheets at the instructions of the then President of Student Union and only on his letter, answer-sheets were handed over to him by the Principal of College and Controller of Examination of M.K. Saboo College, Pilani. Thus, the entire process has been done in quite irregular and illegal manner, so as to affect the result of examination, therefore, at this stage, no interference is called for in the present petition and the petition filed by the petitioner is liable to be dismissed being totally misconceived and devoid of any substance. 14. In rejoinder, learned Senior Counsel drew indulgence of this Court towards the fact that although there were direct allegations against the then President of Student Union, Principal of the College and the Examination Superintendent of the College as well as there was a reference that the letter issued by the President of Student Law Union was acknowledged and forwarded [2025:RJ-JP:44054] (7 of 15) [CRLMP-4627/2015] by the then Vice Chancellor with endorsement to depute Sh. Bheewaram Devasi, yet in quite malicious manner neither the then President of Student Law Union, nor Principal of the College, nor Examination Superintendent of College, nor the then Vice Chancellor, Registrar, Dy. Registrar or Asst. Registrar were implicated as accused in the instant matter, whereas despite there being no overt act whatsoever assigned in the FIR against the petitioner, he is being harassed and victimized. Thus, the action of the prosecution is quite malicious and investigation in the instant matter has been conducted in the selective manner. The petitioner has been made scapegoat unnecessarily in order to save the skin of influential persons. Thus, it is clear that entire investigation has been conducted maliciously and in discriminatory manner, therefore, this Court can exercise its inherent jurisdiction so as to quash the FIR and further proceedings against the petitioner. 16. I have perused the record and heard learned counsel for the parties. 17. This Court is conscious about the legal position that jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. can be exercised quite sparingly and only in limited circumstances where it is borne out of the record that the petitioner has suffered miscarriage of justice and is also victim of abuse of process of law, a petition can be entertained. 18. In order to examine the first submission put forward by learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner that bare perusal of the contents of the FIR would not make out any cognizable offence against the petitioner, it would be relevant to refer the provisions [2025:RJ-JP:44054] (8 of 15) [CRLMP-4627/2015] of Section 13(1)(d) of the Act of 1988 as well as Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 & 120B of IPC which are as under: "Section 13:- Criminal misconduct by a public servant- [1] A public servant is said to commit the offence of criminal misconduct,- (a)...... (b)...... (c)...... (d) if he,- (i) by corrupt or illegal means, obtains for himself or for any other person any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage; or (ii) by abusing his position as a public servant, obtains for himself or for any other person any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage; or (iii) while holding office as a public servant, obtains for any person any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage without any public interest; or Section 420:- Cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property.- Whoever cheats and thereby dishonestly induces that 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. Section 467:- Forgery of valuable security, will, etc.- Whoever forges a document which purports to be a valuable security or a will, or an authority to adopt a son, or which purports to give authority to any person to make or transfer any valuable security, or to receive the principal, interest or dividends thereon, or to receive or deliver any money, movable property, or valuable security, or any document purporting to be an acquittance or receipt acknowledge the payment of money, or an acquittance or receipt for the delivery of any movable property or valuable security, shall be punished with (imprisonment for life), or with imprisonment of either description for a term which my extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine. Section 468:- Forgery for purpose of cheating.- Whoever commits forgery, intending that the (document or electronic record forged) shall be used for the purpose of cheating, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine. [2025:RJ-JP:44054] (9 of 15) [CRLMP-4627/2015] Section 471:- Using as genuine a forged (document or electronic record).- whoever fraudulently or dishonestly uses as genuine any (document or electronic record) which he knows or has reason to believe to be a forged (document or electronic record), shall be punished in the same manner as if he had forged such (document or electronic record). Section 120B:- Punishment of criminal conspiracy.- (1) Whoever is a party to a criminal conspiracy to commit an offence punishable with death, (imprisonment for life) or rigorous imprisonment for a term of two years or upwards, shall, where no express provision is made in this Code for the punishment of such a conspiracy, be punished in the same manner as if he had abetted such offence. (2) Whoever is a party to a criminal conspiracy other than a criminal conspiracy to commit an offence punishable as aforesaid shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term not exceeding six months, or with fine or with both." 19. In the entire FIR or in conclusion of investigation, it is not the case of prosecution that the petitioner was holding any post in any other Government department and thus, it it is not disputed that the petitioner is not a public servant; therefore, by no stretch of imagination, he can be said to be accused of committing offence under Section 13(1)(d) of the Act of 1988, which is manifestly applicable only in the cases of public servants. 20. For implicating any person for committing offence under Section 420 IPC, it is required that there should be specific allegation of having dishonest intention from the beginning as well as allegations with regard to inducement, causing undue loss and undue gain to specific persons. Bare perusal of the contents of the FIR would make it clear that no such allegations are there in the entire FIR against the petitioner. 21. For alleging forgery against any person, an overt act is required to be shown that the alleged document has been made or [2025:RJ-JP:44054] (10 of 15) [CRLMP-4627/2015] fabricated by the person concerned with intent to cause damage or injury to the public or any person, or to support any claim or title, or to cause any person to part with property, or to enter into express or imply contract or with intent to commit fraud. Learned Public Prosecutor has utterly failed to point out from the entire FIR that any such allegations have been levelled against the petitioner so as to constitute any case of forgery as defined under Section 463 IPC against the petitioner. When the contents of Section 463 IPC are not there in the entire FIR, no question arises for prosecuting the petitioner for offences under Sections 467, 468 & 471 of IPC. 22. It has been argued by the learned Public Prosecutor that still in the circumstances where the petitioner is beneficiary of the alleged offence, he can be prosecuted for criminal conspiracy under Section 120B of IPC. 23. Criminal conspiracy has been defined in Indian Penal Code under Section 120A and it specifies that criminal conspiracy would take place where two or more persons agree to do, or cause to be done, an illegal act, or an act which is not illegal by illegal means, such an agreement is designated a criminal conspiracy. Thus, there should be meeting of minds for constituting criminal conspiracy. Here, in the instant case in the entire FIR there is no allegation whatsoever that the petitioner has ever met with any other co-accused in the FIR, therefore, there is no iota of evidence on record to show that he was part of criminal conspiracy by the petitioner. 24. In the case of Ramesh Balkrishna Kulkarni (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has defined public servant and by [2025:RJ-JP:44054] (11 of 15) [CRLMP-4627/2015] perusing the definition of public servant given in the aforesaid judgment, it would come out that the petitioner does not come within the category of public servant and, therefore, is wrongly being prosecuted for offence under Section 13(1)(d) of the Act of 1988. 25. In the case of Sheila Sebastian (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has dealt with the definition of forgery and making of false document. In Paras No.25 & 26, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under: "25. Keeping in view the strict interpretation of penal statute i.e. referring to rule of interpretation wherein natural inferences are preferred, we observe that a charge of forgery cannot be imposed on a person who is not the maker of the same. As held in plethora of cases, making of a document is different than causing it to be made. As Explanation 2 to Section 464 further clarifies that, for constituting an offence under Section 464 it is imperative that a false document is made and the accused person is the maker of the same, otherwise the accused person is not liable for the offence of forgery. 26. The definition of “false document” is a part of the definition of “forgery”. Both must be read together. “Forgery” and “fraud” are essentially matters of evidence which could be proved as a fact by direct evidence or by inferences drawn from proved facts. In the case in hand, there is no finding recorded by the trial court that the respondents have made any false document or part of the document/record to execute mortgage deed under the guise of that “false document”. Hence, neither Respondent 1 nor Respondent 2 can be held as makers of the forged documents. It is the imposter who can be said to have made the false document by committing forgery. In such an event the trial court as well as the appellate court misguided themselves by convicting the accused. Therefore, the High Court has rightly acquitted the accused based on the settled legal position and we find no reason to interfere with the same." 26. Guidelines for quashing FIR has been given by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Haryana Vs. [2025:RJ-JP:44054] (12 of 15) [CRLMP-4627/2015] Bhajan Lal reported in 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335, where it has been held as under: “(102) In the backdrop of the interpretation of the various relevant provisions of the Code under Ch. XIV and of the principles of law enunciated by this court in a series of decisions relating to the exercise of the extraordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent powers under S. 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 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 FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under S. 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of S. 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 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 S. 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 [2025:RJ-JP:44054] (13 of 15) [CRLMP-4627/2015] 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.” 27. In the light of foregoing discussion and in view of the guidelines given by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid cases, it is clear that bare perusal of the contents of the FIR as well as result of the investigation do not reveal anything, so as to infer commission of any cognizable offence as alleged against the petitioner in the impugned FIR. 28. Quite strangely the letter written by the then President of the Student Union for authorizing Sh. Bheewaram Devasi to get the answer-sheets from Pilani college, whereupon the Vice Chancellor of the University directed to depute him for such work and further marked the same to the Registrar, then in turn to the Dy. Registrar and Asst. Registrar, was maliciously neither traced or recovered by the investigation; whereas such letter form genesis of the prosecution story. Missing such fundamental piece of evidence critically undermines the prosecution story. 29. Further by referring that the above letter could not be recovered during investigation, the President of the Student Union, named as the prime suspect from the inception of the case, was never subjected to any investigation whatsoever. This glaring omission demonstrates the investigation's lack of impartiality and fairness. 30. That apart, other influential individuals such as the Vice Chancellor of the University, Registrar, Dy. Registrar and Asst. [2025:RJ-JP:44054] (14 of 15) [CRLMP-4627/2015] Registrar of the University, Principal and Controller of Examination of the Pilani College have not been implicated in the case by the Investigation Officer, which casts a deep cloud of suspicion over the prosecution's narrative. 31. Thus, it is clear that the entire investigation is nothing more than an empty paper formality, serving as a mere eye wash rather than a genuine inquiry into the matter. It lacks substantive evidence and has been conducted in a casual and cursory manner. 32. The record reveals that the investigation exhibits clear signs of being discriminatory, malicious and selective. It targets the petitioner unfairly while ignoring critical leads and evidence. The petitioner has been made a convenient scapegoat to bear the entire burnt of allegations, while the other influential persons, who were having the sole responsibility have not even been investigated. 33. In view of the above facts, it is evident that the FIR and the investigation are fundamentally founded on incomplete, distorted, selective and biased process. The petitioner has been wrongly implicated without due process and fair investigation, whereas his result of the examination has not been withdrawn till this date by the University. 34. The prosecution's conduct in this matter is tainted with clear malafides, which independently warrants quashing of the FIR. The selective targeting of the petitioner, while deliberately ignoring key suspects and vital evidence reflects abuse of the investigation process. Such malicious intent to shield influential individuals and use the petitioner as a scapegoat undermines the very foundation of justice. When the investigation is actuated by [2025:RJ-JP:44054] (15 of 15) [CRLMP-4627/2015] malice and ulterior motives rather than impartial inquiry, it vitiates the entire proceedings, thereby justifying the requirement to quash and set aside the FIR and other subsequent proceedings against the petitioner. Hence, this Court deems it just and proper to exercise its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Accordingly, FIR No.173/1997 registered at Police Station- Rajasthan State Investigation Bureau, Jaipur along with all subsequent proceedings, is quashed and set aside qua the petitioner only. 35. Accordingly, the present Criminal Miscellaneous Petition stands allowed. (ANAND SHARMA),J DAKSH/11