Safeguarding Public Interest: Rajasthan High Court Refuses To Quash FIR Against Three Accused For Forging Degrees & Impersonating In Govt. Exams

The Rajasthan High Court while refusing relief to three people booked for forging degrees and carrying out impersonation while appearing for government exams has observed that the crimes are of substantial public importance.

The Court was considering Writ Petition seeking quashing of offences registered for the offences under Sections 419, 420, 465, 467, 468, 471, 120-B of IPC and Sections 3 and 10 of Rajasthan Public Examination (Measures for Prevention of Unfair Means in Recruitment) Act, 2022.

The single-judge bench of Justice Sameer Jain observed, "....this Court finds that the Petitioners have failed to advance any tenable ground for quashing the FIR or charge-sheet. The findings recorded by the Special Operations Group (SOG), based on documentary evidence, forensic scrutiny, electronic communications, geo-location data, and visual records, collectively substantiate a prima facie case against the petitioners, encompassing offences of forgery, impersonation, and criminal conspiracy, all of which are of substantial public importance....."

The Petitioners were represented by Advocate Punit Jangid while the Respondents were represented by Deputy Government Advocate MS Shekhawat.

Facts of the Case

The FIR was lodged by Senior Deputy Secretary of the Rajasthan Public Service Commission (RPSC), Ajmer against individuals who are allegedly involved in a large-scale conspiracy involving fabrication of educational credentials by procuring and distributing forged degree certificates from Mewar University in order to secure illicit benefits.

Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that at the time of registration of the impugned FIR, the names of the petitioners did not figure therein, as no evidence or material was available to prima facie connect them with the alleged offence. It was contended that, during the course of investigation, the name of the Petitioner-1 came to be interpolated into the record solely on the basis of an alleged association with a mobile phone number purportedly linked to the conspiracy. It was further submitted that it was alleged that the said mobile number was utilized by Petitioner-1 to orchestrate the commission of the offence in question. However, no witness statements, documentary evidence, or identification proceedings were brought on record to implicate Petitioner-1. The Counsel argued that the purported linkage rests merely on speculative inferences drawn by the Special Operations Group (SOG).

It was submitted that the Candidate who was named in the FIR was ineligible to be selected for the post in question. The Counsel alleged that the the SOG engaged the said candidate to impersonate as a dummy candidate in consideration of financial gratification of ₹10,00,000/-. It was further submitted that no witness statements exist to corroborate any of the imputations leveled against the Petitioners. Reliance was placed on Supreme Court's ruling in State of Andhra Pradesh vs. Chekka Guru Murali Mohan & Ors., 2021.

On the other hand, Counsel for the Respondents, assisted by officials from the SOG submitted that although the Petitioners’ names were not initially included in the FIR, they were incorporated in the charge-sheet only after a strenuous and thorough investigation. It was further submitted that the SOG submitted a comprehensive factual report, confirming that the present case involves two intertwined criminal activities, namely, the fabrication of educational documents and impersonation to secure public employment. The Counsel highlighted that the Petitioners, for a considerable period, absconded and withheld cooperation, thus evincing consciousness of guilt.

Reasoning By Court

The Court found 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.

Noting that these are grave offences “of public importance”, it stressed that if the FIRs of such nature if quashed prematurely would result in abuse of the legal process and prejudice legitimate aspirants.

"Furthermore, it is noteworthy that the investigating agency-SOG conducted an arduous investigation, established links between accused petitioners and conspiracy, and filed a chargesheet. Even though petitioners were not named in the FIR, their names were justifiably introduced post-investigation, under safeguards of due process. Their alleged abscondence and noncooperation further detracts from any case of malafide prosecution..." the Court observed.

It was also of the view that it can be inferred that the individuals named in the charge-sheet were in consistent contact with one another and maintained a reasonable nexus relevant to the alleged acts and emphasized that it is a settled principle of law that quo ad judex non lapsus meaning that the court intervenes only where process is abused, and not in ordinary manner.

The Petition was accordingly dismissed.

Cause Title: Babu Lal vs. The State Of Rajasthan (2025:RJ-JP:24406)

Appearances:

Petitioners- Advocate Punit Jangid, Advocate Sahil Rajpurohit, A dvocate Deepak Chauhan

Respondents- Deputy Government Advocate MS Shekhawat, Advocate Vinod Sharma,

Click here to read/ download Order