Read Time: 08 minutes

The Rajasthan High Court has recently reiterated that no Court can travel beyond the facts mentioned and considered therein to cull out "ratio decidendi".

A single bench of Justice Mahendar Kumar Goyal dismissed the criminal miscellaneous petition on the ground of being devoid of merits, stating that the judgment (Smt. Kiran Kanwar Vs. State of Rajasthan and Anr.) relied upon by the petitioner(s) were not applicable to the facts of the present case.

"It is trite that judgment of Court cannot be treated as Euclid's formula and has to be read in the factual matrix involved therein," the Court observed.

The facts of the present case are such that the petitioner was charged under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 474 and 120-B Penal Code, 1860. There was an allegation against the petitioner for forging and fabricating the transfer certificate of Class- VIII which he used along with his nomination papers submitted for contesting election for the post of Sarpanch Gram Panchayat, Mundoti

The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that allegation against him was of furnishing false information before the Returning Officer while submitting nomination papers and in view of provisions of Section 195(1)(a) CrPC, the complaint could have been filed by the public servant, i.e., by the Returning Officer only and no private complaint was maintainable.

The counsel relied on the SC judgment in the Kiran Kanwar v State of Rajasthan, S.B. Criminal Misc. (Petition) No.4345/2019 and stated that,

 “the aforesaid FIR involving identical facts, this Court, vide its judgment dated 10.12.2019, quashed the proceeding initiated on behest of private complaint in view of bar contained under Section 195(1)(a) Cr.P.C. He submitted that the Special Leave to Petition preferred against the aforesaid judgment has been dismissed by the Hon'ble Apex Court.”

On the other hand the counsel of respondent contended that,

“the allegations disclose commission of cognizable offence also and hence, the bar under Section 195 (1) (a) Cr.P.C. is not applicable. They, therefore, prayed that the criminal misc. petition be dismissed.”

Section 195(1) (a) Cr.P.C. provides as under:-

“195. Prosecution for contempt of lawful authority of public servants, for offences against public justice a for offences relating to documents given in evidence-(1)

No Court shall take cognizance-

(a) (i) of any offence punishable under sections 172 to 188 (both inclusive) of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860 ), or

(ii) of any abetment of, or attempt to commit, such offence, or

(iii) of any criminal conspiracy to commit such offence, except on the complaint in writing of the public servant concerned or of some other public servant to whom he is administratively subordinate;”

The Court thus taking into account the facts and circumstances of the present case observed that in the allegations, beside submitting false information with the Returning Officer, are with regard to forging and fabricating a document for which private complaint was very well maintainable. “The judgment of the co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Kiran Kanwar (supra) has no applicability in the facts and circumstances of the present case.”

In this light, the court noted,

Contention of the learned Senior Counsel to assess the precedential value of the judgment of this Court in case of Smt. Kiran Kanwar (supra) analyzing the contents of FIR out of which that judgment arose, is wholly misconceived. A judgment can be a binding precedent only for what has been considered and held in it. No Court can travel beyond the facts mentioned and considered therein to cull out "ratio decidendi".

Thus, the bench dismissed the present criminal misc. petition and observed that,

 “it has specifically been observed that there was no allegation in the FIR of forging and fabricating any document, which is specifically levelled herein and hence, the same has no applicability in the facts and circumstances of the present case.”

Case title : Laluram v. State of Rajasthan, S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 55/2020, decided on 24-02-2021

Law point – Section 195 of CrPC

Access Copy of Judgment Here