The Supreme Court of India has set aside a judgment of the Madhya Pradesh High Court that had quashed criminal proceedings against a former Member of the Legislative Assembly, Rajendra Singh, and others accused of fraudulently obtaining a Scheduled Caste certificate to contest elections. A bench of Justice B.V. Nagarathna and Justice K. V. Viswanathan held that the High Court had conducted a “mini trial” and its findings were “conjectural and patently erroneous,” directing the trial court to proceed with the case.
Background of the Case
The matter originated from a criminal complaint filed by Komal Prasad Shakya before the Chief Judicial Magistrate First Class, Guna. The complaint alleged that Rajendra Singh, along with his father Amrik Singh and others, conspired to obtain a false caste certificate. It was averred that Rajendra Singh and his family belonged to the unreserved (General) category and had always identified as such, with school records showing his religion as “Sikh”.
According to the complaint, just before the legislative assembly elections, Rajendra Singh fraudulently obtained a certificate declaring him to be of the ‘Sansi’ caste, a Scheduled Caste, to contest from the 029 Guna reserved constituency. The complaint alleged that false affidavits and documents were submitted to the Tehsildar, Guna, to procure the certificate. Other accused, including a local councilor, Kiran Jain, and Harvir Singh from the Gurudwara Management Committee, were alleged to have knowingly given false certifications to aid Rajendra Singh in the conspiracy.
The Chief Judicial Magistrate, on 28.05.2014, took cognizance of offences under Sections 420 (Cheating), 467 (Forgery of valuable security), 468 (Forgery for purpose of cheating), 471 (Using as genuine a forged document), and 120B (Criminal Conspiracy) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and issued summons. A revision filed by the accused was dismissed by the Additional Sessions Judge. Subsequently, the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, in an order dated 28.06.2016, quashed the entire criminal proceedings.
It was noted that a High-Powered Scrutiny Committee had already cancelled and ordered the forfeiture of Rajendra Singh’s caste certificate on 10.08.2011, a decision that was upheld right up to the Supreme Court.
High Court’s Reasoning for Quashing
The High Court, while quashing the complaint, reasoned that the accused’s conduct could be due to “legal illiteracy.” It observed, “…it is possible that being a member of ‘Sikh’ community, father or grand-father of the applicant Rajendra Singh would not have thought that they can claim for various reservations etc. on the basis of their caste and therefore the applicant Rajendra Singh and his family members have used the name of the community as ‘Sikh’…”
The High Court also found no evidence that information received from the Tehsildar’s office in Amritsar, which was used as a basis for the certificate, was manipulated. It concluded that insufficiency of evidence for the issuance of the certificate would not attract the offence of forgery and that “no criminal aspect emerges from that cancellation order” of the Scrutiny Committee.
Arguments in the Supreme Court
Appearing for the original complainant, Advocate Anuj Bhandari argued that the accused had identified as General Category their entire lives and procured the false certificate only two months before the election. He submitted that the Scrutiny Committee’s findings and the principles laid down in Kumari Madhuri Patil and Another vs Addl. Commissioner, Tribal Development and Others warranted prosecution for making a false claim.
Senior Advocate Ruchi Kohli, representing the accused, contended that the complaint was a “witch-hunt” and reeked of malafide. She argued that obtaining a document based on false information does not constitute forgery under the IPC, as the accused had not signed or created the document themselves. She maintained that the certificate was cancelled due to procedural lapses, not fraud.
Supreme Court’s Analysis and Decision
The Supreme Court bench strongly disapproved of the High Court’s approach. Justice Viswanathan, writing for the bench, stated, “The High Court has conducted a mini trial… The findings about legal illiteracy are conjectural and patently erroneous. Further at the stage of exercising powers under Section 482 to record that no evidence was produced is also untenable.”
The Court held that the complaint and the accompanying documents prima facie made out a case for trial. The judgment noted that the averments in the complaint clearly alleged forgery in the creation of the panchnama and other supporting documents. The Court extracted portions of the complaint stating, “…this was totally false and forged writing that the accused Rajinder Singh is of Sansi caste.”
On the offence of cheating, the Court observed that the contention that Section 420 IPC is not attracted was “bereft of merit.” It noted the appellant’s argument that “accused-Rajendra Singh was the beneficiary and the caste certificate was the ‘property’ which was obtained by deceiving the authorities.”
Finding that the Trial Judge had meticulously applied his mind while taking cognizance against only four of the twelve arrayed accused, the Supreme Court concluded that this was not a case to be “nipped in the bud.”
The appeals were allowed, and the High Court’s order was set aside. The Criminal Complaint Case No.1072 of 2014 was restored to the file of the Chief Judicial Magistrate First Class, Guna. The Court directed that the trial be concluded expeditiously, within one year, and clarified that the trial should proceed uninfluenced by any observations made by the High Court or the Supreme Court.
