- (1.) Accused-Petitioner has laid this misc. petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing FIR No.64/2015 registered at Police Station, Pokaran, District Jaisalmer qua him. In the impugned FIR, precisely, main allegations are against Smt. Janta wife of Kasham Khan, who has contested the election of Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat Jhalariya on 17.01.2015. There is specific allegation in the FIR that main accused Smt. Janta, for the purpose of contesting election of Sarpanch, has produced a forged and spurious mark-sheet as genuine to show her eligibility as an eligible candidate. Apart from Smt. Janta, one Kasham Khan, Nashir Mohammed, petitioner and Ankit Giri were also attributed roles as conspirators in commission of offence. Therefore, essentially allegation against the petitioner is that he being one of the co-conspirator has played an active role in procuring the requisite spurious mark-sheet for Smt. Janta. For throwing challenge to the FIR, petitioner has pleaded that he was having no nexus whatsoever with Smt. Janta and therefore, allegations, in the FIR against him for showing his proximity with the main accused are absolutely vague, cryptic and unspecific.
(2.) It is further submitted in the petition that neither he has played any role in procuring the mark-sheet nor he is a beneficiary of the alleged forged document. It is in that background, petitioner has craved for quashing FIR qua him. Learned Public Prosecutor has placed case diary in the matter for perusal. As per investigation, the Investigating Agency has not found any incriminating evidence against Nashir Mohammed and Ankit Giri, who is Headmaster and Manager of the school concerned, which allegedly issued mark-sheet in favour of Smt. Janta. During investigation, as per learned Public Prosecutor, some incriminating evidence is found against the present petitioner so as to prima facie prove offence under Section 120 B IPC. Essentially, the Investigating Officer has found that petitioner is closely related to the main accused Smt. Janta and therefore there are probabilities that he might have played a pivotal role in arranging the mark-sheet for allowing her to contest election of Sarpanch by showing her eligibility. During investigation, some of the witnesses have also deposed that during the entire election process, petitioner has not participated and has not played any role to support candidature of Smt. Janta. Likewise a contrary version is also elicited from a few witnesses during investigation. However, the Investigating Agency has also not been able to prove close relationship of the petitioner with Smt. Janta the main accused but for concluding that he is related to her. While it is true that some of the witnesses deposed before the Investigating Officer that petitioner has played active role during election of Smt.Janta but that itself cannot be a relevant factor so as to connect the petitioner for commission of offence of criminal conspiracy. In order to constitute offence under Section 120B IPC, i.e., criminal conspiracy, the essential ingredient is the agreement to commit an illegal act and such an agreement can be proved either by direct evidence or circumstantial evidence or by both. It is needless to observe that many a times for proving criminal conspiracy direct evidence is not available but then prima facie inference can be drawn on the basis of circumstantial evidence of sterling worth and not hearsay.
(3.) In the instant case, the evidence so far collected by the Investigating Agency is obviously not in the nature of direct evidence. Even if, evidence is examined on the touchstone of circumstantial evidence, then too prima facie the reliability of evidence is under serious cloud. If any allegation is based on circumstantial evidence then the entire chain has to be completed. As a matter of fact, in the instant case, the Investigating Agency has not interrogated any person or recorded statement of any witness who has stated that petitioner has played an active role in procuring the mark-sheet in the name of Smt.Janta. As such, the entire edifice of the investigation is the so-called relationship of petitioner with Smt. Janta essentially on the basis of the fact that both are belonging to same community.;