BUPENDER SINGH Vs. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed with the prayer to quash the summoning order dated 10.06.2002 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hardwar in case No. 1919 of 2002 State vs. Bhupender Singh relating to case crime No. 274 of 2001 under Sections 420, 468 & 471 IPC and also to quash the Charge-sheet filed by the I.O. in this case. Brief facts giving rise to this case are that the accused-applicant Bhupender Singh had applied for the recruitment of Constable in the Uttarakhand Police on 31.08.2001 through a written application form to the S.S.P., Hardwar (sic) prescribed format and on the basis of the above application, the applicant was registered being registration No. 505 in that office. The applicant after undergoing the physical test etc. on qualifying the above was allotted chest No. 307 in the next exercise and then in a written test and thus successfully qualified the requisite norms declaring 250 candidates fit but on the medical grounds four out of those candidates found unfit and thus 246 candidates were finally selected in the recruitment as constable. On the basis of the above final selection all the selected candidates were asked to report in the office of SSP, Hardwar on 10.10.2001. All these candidates appeared there. The petitioner and all other candidates were asked to deposit Rs. 50 each with a person present there who collected the said amount and got scrutinized on a printed proforma from each selected candidate through the above procedure and the petitioner also taking it to be same formality of the procedure signed those printed proformas in ordinary course without inquiring about it and without knowing the nature of the printed material. The applicant could know about the nature of the above said printed proforma that it was an affidavit and the declaration printed on it pertained to the details of registration of criminal case etc. besides the other information only after the FIR of this case but it is made clear that if the other contents are taken to be true also the said affidavit is not covered under the definition of 'affidavit'.

(2.) The complainant lodged an FIR against the applicant with the allegations that a false affidavit has been filed by the accused-applicant, Bhupender Singh, who had applied for the post of constable in Uttarakhand Police and was finally selected. This was disclosed on the complaint of one Sitaram who had moved a complaint that a Session Trial number 197 of 1999 under Sections 147, 148, 452 and 304 IPC is pending against the accused. Sitaram had also complained that applicant Bhupender Singh, undergoing training at Tehri, is a person of criminal antecedents. He had committed murder of one Surya Pratap s/o Sitaram. Smt. Poonam Sah, ASI who was engaged in the work of character verification, stated that a criminal case 124 of 1998 under Sections 147, 148, 452, 504 & 307 IPC is registered against the applicant Bhupender Singh and trial is pending against him. The allegation against the applicant Bhupender Singh is that he had filed a wrong affidavit during the recruitment process that no criminal case is pending against him. He had wrongly deposed that no case has ever been registered against him. Another Person Abhai Pratap had also lodged (sic) against him wherein charge-sheet has been filed and criminal trial is pending against him. Since wrong affidavit has been filed by Bhupender Singh, therefore a fresh FIR being case crime No. 274 of 2001 u/s 420, 468, 471 IPC was got registered against him at P.S. Ranipur, district Haridwar. The Investigating Officer has filed the charge-sheet against the accused and consequently the charge-sheet was registered in the court and summoning order was passed by the learned C.J.M., Hardwar.

(3.) It was contended by learned counsel for the applicant Bhupender Singh that it was not a condition in the recruitment that there must not be any criminal case registered against the candidate except that the candidate should not have been convicted any court. He had further contended that the document in question cannot be termed as an 'affidavit'. It is only a proforma of the affidavit. The document in question is a printed form where the blank spaces have been filled as if it is a proforma. The alleged affidavit had never been read over and sworn in accordance with law. The applicant had no knowledge of the contents of the alleged affidavit as those were got prepared by the authorities in bulk at a time without providing him the knowledge of the contents and in a routine process of recruitment of the police constabulary. These proforma affidavits were not produced by the applicant or any other candidate before any authority or authorities whatsoever so there is no question of using the false and forged documents to one's benefit.