Abhishek Kumar vs State Of Uttarakhand And Others

Ravindra Maithani, J

In the instant petition filed under Section 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioner seeks quashing of FIR No. 06 of 2020, under Sections 167, 420,

465, 468, 469, 471 IPC, Police Station â€" Revenue Police Devdhung (Purola), District Uttarakhand, and also seeking direction that the petitioner may

not be arrested pursuant to the FIR.

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records.

Petitioner is a stenographer in the office of Deputy Collector, Purola, District Uttarkashi. It appears that with regard to an incident dated

15.07.2020, the Deputy Collector, Purola lodged a report against the petitioner under Sections 166, 332, 353, 477, 477-A and 504 IPC and Section 51

of the Disaster Management Act, 2005, in which, the petitioner was arrested and subsequently, on 20.07.2020, he was released on bail, but, according

to the petition, again, a report has been lodged against him without any basis. The FIR in the instant case reveals that on 18.07.2020, a Balbeer Singh

approached the informant (deputy collector, Purola) and presented an order of the informant to him. The informant then came to know that his

signatures were forged in it. It was prepared by the stenographer and the informant mentioned in the FIR that his signatures were forged by the

petitioner. The person presenting the order Mr. Balveer Singh then told the informant that the order was given to him by the petitioner. The informant

inspected the record and found that various orders were issued by the petitioner by forging his signatures. It is this FIR, which is sought to be quashed.

Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner has not committed any wrong; he is an employee with the Government; the

documents, which the informant inspected, were inspected in the absence of the petitioner; there has been no independent witness to that and it was

all done under the conspiracy to implicate the petitioner. It is also argued that it is a case in which arrest should not be mechanically made.

On behalf of the State, learned counsel would submit that offences are made out in the instant case.

It is true that earlier also, an FIR was lodged by the informant against the petitioner. In fact, otherwise, this is most unfortunate situation that a

public servant is filing an FIR against another public servant. But, this Court restrains itself to make any observation on this issue.

The instant petition is under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The scope of interference, at this stage, is much narrowed. It may be made

only in exceptional and rare circumstances. In case, the FIR discloses commission of cognizable offence, such interference is never warranted. In the

instant case, it is the informant, who happens to be Sub-Divisional Magistrate who noticed that one of the letters which was presented by a Balbeer

Singh was forged and his signatures were forged by the petitioner. He inspected other records and found many documents in which his signatures

were forged. There is a list of various documents in the FIR. Undoubtedly, the FIR discloses commission of cognizable offence, therefore, there is no

reason to make any interference and the petition deserves to be dismissed.

The instant petition is dismissed.

The Court may like to remind the Investigating Officer that in case, arrest is required to be made, all the guidelines and the statutory provisions

should be kept in view that the arrest is not to be made in routine and mechanical manner.