Bhim Sen Garg v. State of Rajasthan & Ors.
(2006) 3 RLW 2411
In the High Court of Rajasthan
Civil Writ Petition No. 1027/2006
Before Justice K. S. Rathore
Decided on June 13, 2006

Relevancy of the case: Writ of mandamus to quash an FIR under Section 65

Statutes & Provisions Involved

• The Information Technology Act, 2000 (Section 65)
• The Indian Penal Code, 1860 (Section 465, 467, 471, 120B)
• The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Section 154, 173)
• The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (Section 65B)

Relevant Facts of the Case

• A cabinet minister in Rajasthan was alleged of being involved in an incident of prostitution as per the contents of some news channel due to which an investigation was carried out by the C.I.D, Jaipur. During the investigation, they recorded statements of various people including the victim of such prostitution.
• The petitioner in his news channel published some libellous content against the minister. It was later found in the police investigation that the minister was not involved.
• A notice was sent to the petitioner during the investigation to send the original CD which was the source on which the petitioner published the news. The petitioner provided the copy of the CD which, after the examination, was found to be interpolated. An FIR was registered on 27-01-2006 against the petitioner for publishing such news and for forgery.
• The petitioner, praying for the writ of mandamus, filed a writ petition in the court for quashing of the FIR for the crimes under sections 120(B), 465, 471 and 467 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 65 of Information Technology Act. 

Prominent Arguments by the Advocates

Mr Bajwa, Counsel For the petitioner

• He argued that the FIR was filed against the petitioner with a hidden agenda of taking personal revenge. It was submitted that the case alleged against the petitioner is a non-cognizable offence. It was submitted that the CD was not submitted to the police by the petitioner but by one of his employee, so he cannot be held liable for the forgery. The contents of the CD were true and was not forged by the petitioner. It was also submitted that since the CD is not original, it cannot be considered as a piece of valid evidence as per section 65(B) of the Indian Evidence Act.

Mr Mohd. Aslam, Counsel for the Respondent:

• The learnt counsel for the respondent denied the allegations put up by the counsel for the petitioner. He further submitted that the CD submitted by the petitioner to the police was directly sent for examination to the State Forensic Science laboratory. The report after examination stated that there were thirty-three clip discontinuities which prove that the CD submitted by the petitioner was forged. It was also submitted that the offence committed by the petitioner is cognizable and as per section 156 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the police has the right to investigate the case.

Opinion of the Bench

• The court was of the opinion that the counsel for the petitioner was not able to prove that there was any malicious intent from the side of the minister as mere allegation would not be enough. Thus, the case against the petitioner cannot be quashed.
• The court held that this case will not be considered as the rarest of rare cases under Article 226 of the Indian Constitution.

Final Decision

• The writ petition was dismissed. No order was made as to the costs.

This case summary has been prepared by Afsana Khan, an undergraduate student at Symbiosis Law School, Hyderabad, during her internship with The Cyber Blog India in June/July 2020.