Reena Rani @ Reena Garg vs State Of Uttarakhand & Another

R.C. Khulbe, J

By way of present application, moved under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., applicant seeks to quash the order dated 4.6.2019 passed by learned Judicial

Magistrate, Laksar in Misc. Case No.120 of 2019, as well as the order dated 20.11.2019 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Laksar,

Haridwar in Crl. Revision No.401 of 2019.

Factual matrix of the case is that applicant-Smt. Reena Rani filed an application u/s 156(3) of the Cr.P.C. against the respondent no.2 before the

Magistrate concerned, who after hearing the applicant, dismissed the application vide his order dated 4.6.2019. Aggrieved by it, the applicant preferred

criminal revision no.401 of 2019 Smt. Reena v. State and others. Learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Laksar, after hearing the parties, dismissed the

revision on 20.11.2019 and affirmed the order dated 4.6.2019 passed by the J.M. Laksar. Aggrieved thereby, the present petition is filed u/s 482

Cr.P.C. for quashing the above orders.

It is argued by learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is the permanent resident of State of Uttarakhand; she applied for grant of a

permanent resident certificate; all the necessary documents were filled up and produced before the respondent- Vijay Pal Rastogi who was posted as

a clerk in Tehsil Roorkee; that the applicant filled up all the documents through Sukendra @ Sonu who was the typist in Tehsil compound; after

submitting all the documents before the respondent â€" Vijay Pal Rastogi, he issued the permanent resident certificate in favour of applicant as well as

her husband; both the documents dated 22.5.2014 are on record; after submitting the certificate issued in favour of the applicant, she submitted the

same before the Education Department but the said Department found the same to be forged; the applicant had no knowledge about it; she submitted

the same believing that the same was a genuine document; the learned Trial Court as well as the Revisional Court did not notice this fact and simply

dismissed the application u/s 156(3) Cr.P.C.; and there exists ample evidence against the respondent to proceed with the matter.

On the other hand, learned counsel for the private respondent no.2 vehemently argued that the applicant never applied before the respondent for

grant of permanent resident certificate; although he was posted as E-District Clerk in Tehsil Laksar, Haridwar; neither he received any document

from the applicant nor did he issue the above certificate in favour of the applicant or her husband-Sandeep Kumar Garg; that the so-called Sukendra

@ Sonu was not the Typist in Tehsil Laksar; in this regard, the information given by the Public Information Officer dated 14.05.2019 is on record;

when the matter came in the knowledge of the Education Department, a detailed enquiry was conducted; and an information was obtained from Tehsil

Laksar; the respondent- Vijay Pal Rastogi had made his endorsement on the right side of the above forged resident certificate that the said certificate

is forged; apart from that, the S.I.T. is also investigating the matter; and on the forged resident certificate, the services of the applicant have been

terminated; and no case is made out against the respondent.

It is true that the respondent- Vijay Pal Rastogi is a clerk in Tehsil Laksar. It is also true that the applicant Reena Rani submitted the above

certificate dated 22.5.2014 before the education department which was ultimately found to be a forged document; but there is no prima facie evidence

on record showing that the applicant had submitted all the documents for obtaining the resident certificate before the respondent- Vijay Pal Rastogi.

There is no prima facie evidence on record to show that the respondent- Vijay Pal Rastogi issued the above two resident certificates dated 22.5.2014

in favour of the applicant or her husband namely Sandeep Kumar Garg.

Moreover, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Haryana and others v. Bhajan Lal & others, reported in 1992 Supp (1) SCC

335, has considered, in detail, the provisions of Section 482 Cr.P.C., and the power of the High Court to quash criminal proceedings or FIR. The

Hon’ble Supreme Court summarized the legal position by laying the following guidelines to be followed by High Courts in exercise of their inherent

powers to quash a criminal complaint: -

A. “Where the allegations made in the first information report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in

their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused.

B. Where the allegations in the first information report and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable

offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the

purview of Section 155(2) of the Code.

C. Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the

commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused.

D. Where the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non- cognizable offence, no investigation is

permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code.

E. Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which, no prudent person

can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused.

F. Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal

proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or, where there is a specific provision in the Code or the

concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party.

G. Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior

motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge.â€​

It is a question of fact as to who issued the forged resident certificate. Since the S.I.T. is going to investigate the matter, the S.I.T. has the power to

investigate it, and the Court has no power to investigate the matter. As per the application filed u/s 156(3) Cr.P.C., no case is made out against the

respondent. In light of the aforesaid judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court, I am of the considered view that the Trial Court as well as the

Revisional Court has passed a detailed and reasoned order. There is no scope of interference in the matter, as no illegality or irregularity is found to

have been committed by both the courts below.

Accordingly, the instant C482 application is bereft of any merit and the same is hereby dismissed.

Pending application, if any, stands disposed of accordingly.