'Grave Offences Of Public Importance': Rajasthan High Court Denies Relief To 3 Booked For Forging Degrees, Impersonation In Govt Exam
The Rajasthan High Court dismissed a batch of pleas by three persons–including a woman–seeking quashing of an FIR accusing them of a "large scale conspiracy" involving fabrication of educational credentials and impersonation in public examination, observing that these were grave offences “of public importance”. Justice Sameer Jain ruled that the findings recorded by the Special...
The Rajasthan High Court dismissed a batch of pleas by three persons–including a woman–seeking quashing of an FIR accusing them of a "large scale conspiracy" involving fabrication of educational credentials and impersonation in public examination, observing that these were grave offences “of public importance”.
Justice Sameer Jain ruled that the findings recorded by the Special Operations Group (“SOG”) collectively substantiated a "prima facie case" against the petitioners, and premature quashing of FIRs would result in abuse of legal process and prejudicing rights of legitimate aspirants.
"Having heard the arguments advanced by the learned counsel appearing for various parties, taking note of the material available on record, and upon an assiduous scanning of the factual report furnished by the Superintendent of Police, SOG, Ajmer, this Court finds no merit for interference and quashing of the impugned FIR, as the allegations reveal prima facie cognizable offences under Sections 467, 468, 471, and 120-B IPC, pertaining to forgery of educational credentials, impersonation, and conspiracy which implicate the integrity of the public employment system. These are grave offences “of public importance” nevertheless, if the FIRs of such nature if quashed prematurely would result in abuse of the legal process and prejudice legitimate aspirants".
A person had applied for the post of lecturer citing that she was pursuing post-graduation from the Vardhaman Mahavir Open University. She secured provisional selection and was summoned for document verification during which certain discrepancies were found in her educational documents.
Subsequently, Rajasthan Public Services Commission (“RPSC”) solicited certification from the open university, after which a large-scale conspiracy was revealed involving fabrication and distribution of forged degree certificates from Mewar University, and impersonation in government examinations. The investigation was handed over to Special Operations Group (SOG), Rajasthan.
FIR was registered against the applicant which followed implication of the petitioners allegedly found to be involved in the conspiracy based on further investigation.
It was the case of the petitioners that they were neither named in the FIR not was there any substantial evidence brought on record to establish their involvement in the alleged offence. Purported linkage rested merely on the speculative inference drawn by SOG.
Moreover, it was submitted that the petitioners were young individuals whose entire career shall stand imperiled by their names being included in the charge sheet.
On the contrary, it was argued that even though the petitioners' names were not initially included in the FIR, they were incorporated in the charge sheet only after a strenuous and thorough investigation wherein demonstrable links between them and the conspiracy were established through physical and digital evidence.
It was further submitted that the petitioners were also absconding for a long time, evading support for the investigation that also indicated consciousness of guilt.
After hearing the arguments and perusing the evidence on record, the Court said that the digital video recording retrieved from the examination centre, "prima facie" established that the individual who appeared under the identity of the applicant was petitioner no. 3.
Furthermore, it was highlighted that even though the petitioners were not named in the FIR, their names were justifiably introduced post-investigation, under safeguards of due process.
"Their alleged abscondence and non-cooperation further indicated towards malafide," the court said.
Reference was made to the Supreme Court case of Bhajan Lal v State of Haryana in which it was held that only in the “rarest of rare cases” the High Court should exercise its extraordinary powers under Section 528 BNSS, when allegation, even if acceptable at the face value, did not make out a cognizable offence, or if the registration was with malafide, collusion or ulterior motive.
The Court held that the present case did not fulfil any of these conditions, and thus no tenable ground to quash the FIR or charge sheet was put forth by the petitioners.
The court dismissed the quashing pleas directing the petitioners extend their full cooperation with the ongoing investigation.
Case Title: Babu Lal v the State of Rajasthan & Other connected petitions
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 227