The High Court has clarified that, where there are prima facie allegations of false representation or affidavit in the context of compassionate appointments, an FIR under Sections 177, 181 & 420 IPC cannot be quashed at the threshold. This judgment reaffirms Bhajan Lal principles applied by Supreme Court and is binding precedent for subordinate courts within Himachal Pradesh.
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | CRMMO/939/2025 of ROHINI KUMARI Vs STATE OF HP |
| CNR | HPHC010596012025 |
| Date of Registration | 24-09-2025 |
| Decision Date | 29-10-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | Dismissed |
| Judgment Author | Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rakesh Kainthla |
| Court | High Court of Himachal Pradesh |
| Precedent Value | Binding on subordinate courts within Himachal Pradesh |
| Type of Law | Criminal Law / Service Law (Compassionate Appointment, False Statement Offences) |
| Questions of Law | Whether an FIR alleging false affidavit/misstatement about marital status to receive compassionate appointment can be quashed at the threshold under Section 482 CrPC. |
| Ratio Decidendi |
|
| Judgments Relied Upon |
|
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon by the Court | The High Court quoted Bhajan Lal criteria and Supreme Court’s interpretations of inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC, emphasizing that if the FIR discloses a prima facie case—including in cases of alleged false affidavits—quashing is impermissible. |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court |
|
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts in Himachal Pradesh |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts, especially in cases involving compassionate appointment and alleged misrepresentation |
| Follows |
|
| Distinguishes | Cited cases on married daughters’ eligibility for compassionate appointment (did not support quashing in these facts) |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Reaffirms that if FIR and materials disclose a prima facie cognizable offence, especially involving false affidavits or misstatements, courts are precluded from quashing at threshold.
- Clarifies that arguments relating to the ultimate eligibility/entitlement for compassionate appointment (e.g. married daughter’s rights) do not justify quashing where factual allegations relate to false statements or affidavits.
- Distinguishes between legal entitlement to appointment and veracity of information supplied to secure appointment—investigation into misstatements must proceed where alleged.
- Provides clear reaffirmation of Bhajan Lal grounds as applicable to both criminal and service/joining affidavit contexts.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The Court first recited the settled principles governing exercise of Section 482 CrPC powers, quoting from Bhajan Lal (seven illustrative categories), and noted that quashing is only permissible in rare categories, e.g., where even on a face reading no offence is disclosed.
- Recent Supreme Court decisions (B.N. John, Ajay Malik, Rajendra Bihari Lal) were cited to reinforce that these powers are to be sparingly exercised; criminal investigations should proceed unless clear abuse of process or no prima facie case exists.
- On facts, the Court found that the FIR specifically alleged a false affidavit and misstatement regarding marital status; the issue being investigated included who made alterations and whether authorities were misled.
- The Court held that—even accepting the evolving law on married daughters’ eligibility—this did not legalize or retroactively justify alleged prior misrepresentations. The cited judgments (Mamta Devi etc.) post-dated the petitioner’s joining date and thus did not assist petitioner for the period concerned.
- Concluding, the Court held that as allegations of false statements/affidavits make out a cognizable offence, and investigation is ongoing, no case for quashing FIR at this stage is made out.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner:
- Asserted entitlement to compassionate appointment as married daughter under current law.
- Claimed no misrepresentation or withholding of material information regarding marital status.
- Submitted that proceedings constitute abuse of court process and should be quashed.
- Relied on High Court and Supreme Court decisions recognizing right of married daughters to compassionate appointment.
Respondent (State):
- Argued FIR and police record show prima facie case of false affidavit and misrepresentation about marital status.
- Investigation is at an initial stage; evidence collection ongoing.
- Petition should be dismissed to allow investigation into whether authorities were misled to proceed.
Factual Background
The petitioner was appointed as a clerk on compassionate grounds following her father’s death, based on affidavits and NOCs from family members. The FIR was registered at Dharamshala Police Station, alleging that the petitioner had sworn an incorrect affidavit in 2012 declaring herself unmarried (when she was, in fact, married since 2009), and altered her record at joining in 2014. In 2019, she formally sought to update her service records with her husband’s name. The petitioner asserted her eligibility irrespective of marital status, while the police alleged procurement of appointment by concealment of facts. Investigation is ongoing.
Statutory Analysis
- Sections Discussed: Sections 177 (Furnishing false information), 181 (False statement on oath), and 420 (Cheating) of the IPC.
- CrPC Provisions Discussed: Section 482 (Inherent powers of High Court).
- The Court applied a strict interpretation—if FIR discloses prima facie ingredients of the offences, quashing under Section 482 is impermissible.
- No “reading down” or constitutional provisions analyzed concerning the entitlement itself; focus was on the mechanics of false statement offences and process for quashing.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – The decision affirms and applies the settled principles from Bhajan Lal and subsequent Supreme Court judgments regarding quashing of FIRs under Section 482 CrPC.