LAWS(MPH)-2002-3-47

VIKAS Vs. STATE OF M P

Decided On March 22, 2002
VIKAS Appellant
V/S
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE applicants have raised their grievances against the order passed by Addl. Sessions Judge, Shujalpur, Distt. Shajapur in Cr. Revision No. 118/2000, dated 29-1-2002 arising out of order dated 19-1-2000 and 22-1-2001 passed in Criminal Case No. 581/99 by JMFC, Shujalpur dismissing their revision against the order of framing of charge.

(2.) THE prosecution case in short is that the police of Police Station, Kalapeepal has filed charge-sheet against the applicants for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 467 and 468, IPC vide Crime No. 213/96 alleging that they had obtained false certificate of S. T. after submitting false and forged affidavits which is contrary to the provisions of law. The JMFC, Shujalpur framed charge against the applicants for the aforesaid sections.

(3.) THIS order was assailed before the Revisional Court and the same has been dismissed, hence this petition has been filed praying for exercising of inherent power for quashing the Courts below orders by this Court. The contention of learned Counsel for the applicants is that the Supreme Court has ruled in a case of Ku. Madhuri Patil and Anr. v. Addl. Commissioner, Tribunal Development (AIR 1995 SC 94): 11. The order passed by the Committee shall be final and conclusive only subject to the proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution. 12. No suit or other proceedings before any other authority should lie. In Paragraph 12 of the aforesaid judgment the Supreme Court has held as under:- For that purpose, it is necessary to streamline the procedure for the issuance of a social status certificate, their scrutiny and their approval. The Supreme Court has also directed in Paragraph 14 as under:-In case, the certificate obtained or social status claimed is found to be false, the parent/guardian/the candidate should be prosecuted for making false claim. If the prosecution ends in a conviction and sentence of the accused, it could be regarded as an offence involving moral turpitude, disqualification for elective posts or offices under the State or the Union or elections to any local body, Legislature or the Parliament.