R.S. Chauhan, J. - (1.) Aggrieved by the investigation in F.I.R., F.I.R. No. 5/2011, dated 4.1.2011, registered at Police Station Arian, Tehsil Kishangarh, District Ajmer for offences under Sections 420, 465, 468 and 471 I.P.C., the petitioner has approached this Court.
(2.) It is the case of the petitioner that he was appointed on the post of Manager (Vyavasthapak) in the year 1970 on the ground that he had been working with the Saptiliya Gram Sewa Sahkari Samiti, Village Sandoliya, Ajmer for two months and had done a condemnable job. Subsequently, his appointment was continued and even presently he is working as a Manager of the said Samiti. During the course of his working, he issued a notice to the respondent No. 2, Rameshwar Lal, informing him that a loan of Rs. 8,063/- was taken by him, which has not been repaid. Therefore, he would be removed from the post of the President of the Board of Governors and in future, the meetings of the Samiti will be held in his absence. According to the learned counsel, it is this notice, which created animosity between the petitioner and Rameshwar Lal. Aggrieved by the said notice, Rameshwar Lal had filed a notice under Section 58 of the Rajasthan Cooperative Society Act, 2001 ('the Act', for short) before the Sub-Registrar Sahkari Samitis, Ajmer. The matter was referred to the Arbitral Tribunal. Vide order dated 23.10.2009, the Arbitral Tribunal cancelled the notice and permitted the respondent No. 2 to resume the work on the post of President of the Board of Governors. Aggrieved by the said order, in turn, the petitioner preferred an appeal under Section 105 of the Act. The said appeal is still pending.
(3.) However, in order to wreak personal vengeance upon the petitioner, respondent No. 2 submitted a criminal complaint before the Additional Civil Judge (J.D.) and Judicial Magistrate, Kishangarh, wherein he alleged that in order to seek employment, the petitioner had submitted a mark-sheet of High School issued by Board of Secondary Education, Rajasthan, wherein his date of birth was shown as 5.8.1951. However, when the record of the school was called for, and certificate of the Principal of the school was sought, it was revealed that the petitioner's date of birth, in fact, happens to be 5.8.1943. According to the respondent No. 2, there is a difference of eight years between the date of birth shown in the school record and the date of birth shown in the petitioner's High School mark-sheet. It is upon this allegation and upon the complaint that the police has registered the F.I.R. for the aforementioned offences.;