VIMLA SINGH Vs. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In FIR No. 268/2012, under Sections 420/468/471 of the IPC, registered at police station Vasant Kunj, New Delhi, petitioner is accused of obtaining the job of a teacher in the year 1995, on the basis of false caste certificate. After investigation, charge-sheet has been filed before the trial court. Vide order of 23rd September, 2014 trial court has directed the Investigating Officer of this case to file the supplementary charge-sheet in. respect of probable role of petitioner's husband in attesting the caste certificate of petitioner. A direction has been issued to the Investigating Officer to file FSL Report regarding handwriting on the application form and the caste certificate. By subsequent orders of 5th December, 2014 and 18th December, 2014, trial court has sought compliance report regarding filing the supplementary charge-sheet in terms of order of 23r September, 2014.

(2.) In this petition, quashing of FIR in question and aforesaid orders is sought on the ground that the genuineness of the caste certificate can be determined only by the 'Caste Scrutiny Committee'.

(3.) At the hearing, learned senior counsel for petitioner had submitted that the registration of this FIR is in violation of the Office Memorandum of 29th March, 2007 issued by the Ministry of Personnel P.G. Pensions, Department of Personnel & Training, Government of India (AnnexureA-2). Reliance was placed upon decisions in Kumari Madhuri Patil and Anr. v. Addl. Commissioner, Tribal Development & Ors., 1994 6 SCC 241; Davaram v. Sudhir Bath am & ors., 2012 1 SCC 333; Vikas Jagdish Shipuriya & anr. v. State of M.P., 2002 3 MPLJ 417 and Malkit Singh v. State & anr., 2011 2 Crimes(MP) 175 to submit that the genuineness of the caste certificate can be only certified by the Caste Scrutiny Committee of the State concerned and in the instant case, it is to be certified by the Caste Scrutiny Committee of State of Uttar Pradesh, which has not been done, and so continuance of proceedings arising out of FIR in question is unwarranted. Impugned orders of 23rd September, 2014, 5th December, 2014 and 8th December, 2014 are assailed by learned senior counsel for petitioner by submitting that under the Code of Criminal Procedure, further investigation is directed but law does not give any power to the court to direct the Investigating Officer to file a supplementary charge-sheet and so, impugned orders deserve to be quashed.