Rajasthan High Court Denies Relief To 3 Booked For Forging Degrees, Impersonation In Govt Exam
The Rajasthan Excessive Courtroom dismissed a batch of pleas by three individuals–together with a lady–in search of quashing of an FIR accusing them of a “massive scale conspiracy” involving fabrication of academic credentials and impersonation in public examination, observing that these had been grave offences “of public significance”.
Justice Sameer Jain dominated that the findings recorded by the Particular Operations Group (“SOG”) collectively substantiated a “prima facie case” in opposition to the petitioners, and untimely quashing of FIRs would lead to abuse of authorized course of and prejudicing rights of authentic aspirants.
“Having heard the arguments superior by the discovered counsel showing for numerous events, paying attention to the fabric out there on report, and upon an assiduous scanning of the factual report furnished by the Superintendent of Police, SOG, Ajmer, this Courtroom finds no benefit for interference and quashing of the impugned FIR, because the allegations reveal prima facie cognizable offences below Sections 467, 468, 471, and 120-B IPC, pertaining to forgery of academic credentials, impersonation, and conspiracy which implicate the integrity of the general public employment system. These are grave offences “of public significance” however, if the FIRs of such nature if quashed prematurely would lead to abuse of the authorized course of and prejudice authentic aspirants“.
An individual had utilized for the put up of lecturer citing that she was pursuing post-graduation from the Vardhaman Mahavir Open College. She secured provisional choice and was summoned for doc verification throughout which sure discrepancies had been present in her academic paperwork.
Subsequently, Rajasthan Public Providers Fee (“RPSC”) solicited certification from the open college, after which a large-scale conspiracy was revealed involving fabrication and distribution of solid diploma certificates from Mewar College, and impersonation in authorities examinations. The investigation was handed over to Particular Operations Group (SOG), Rajasthan.
FIR was registered in opposition to the applicant which adopted implication of the petitioners allegedly discovered to be concerned within the conspiracy based mostly on additional investigation.
It was the case of the petitioners that they had been neither named within the FIR not was there any substantial proof introduced on report to ascertain their involvement within the alleged offence. Purported linkage rested merely on the speculative inference drawn by SOG.
Furthermore, it was submitted that the petitioners had been younger people whose complete profession shall stand imperiled by their names being included within the cost sheet.
Quite the opposite, it was argued that despite the fact that the petitioners’ names weren’t initially included within the FIR, they had been included within the cost sheet solely after a strenuous and thorough investigation whereby demonstrable hyperlinks between them and the conspiracy had been established via bodily and digital proof.
It was additional submitted that the petitioners had been additionally absconding for a very long time, evading help for the investigation that additionally indicated consciousness of guilt.
After listening to the arguments and browsing the proof on report, the Courtroom mentioned that the digital video recording retrieved from the examination centre, “prima facie” established that the person who appeared below the id of the applicant was petitioner no. 3.
Moreover, it was highlighted that despite the fact that the petitioners weren’t named within the FIR, their names had been justifiably launched post-investigation, below safeguards of due course of.
“Their alleged abscondence and non-cooperation additional indicated in direction of malafide,” the court docket mentioned.
Reference was made to the Supreme Courtroom case of Bhajan Lal v State of Haryana during which it was held that solely within the “rarest of uncommon instances” the Excessive Courtroom ought to train its extraordinary powers below Part 528 BNSS, when allegation, even when acceptable on the face worth, didn’t make out a cognizable offence, or if the registration was with malafide, collusion or ulterior motive.
The Courtroom held that the current case didn’t fulfil any of those situations, and thus no tenable floor to quash the FIR or cost sheet was put forth by the petitioners.
The court docket dismissed the quashing pleas directing the petitioners prolong their full cooperation with the continuing investigation.
Case Title: Babu Lal v the State of Rajasthan & Different related petitions
Quotation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 227
