The court cannot quash an FIR based on extrinsic considerations, go beyond the allegations made in the FIR, rely on extrinsic considerations to quash an FIR, adjudicate factual disputes in a petition to quash an FIR, or exercise its inherent powers to quash an FIR where a cognizable offense is made out. The complainant has locus standi to file an FIR, and the court cannot question the locus standi of the complainant unless the statute indicates otherwise.

JUDGMENT :

Manoj Kumar Garg, J.

Instant misc. petition has been filed by the petitioner for quashing of FIR No. 172/2016 registered at Police Station Rawatbhatta, District Chittorgarh for offence under Section 420, 467, 468, 471, 477, 120B IPC.

2. Brief facts of the case are that the complainant L.K. Arya filed a complaint before the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, RawatBhata, District Chittorgarh to the effect that son of Shailesh Mohan was born on 04.06.2006 at Kota and entry to this effect was recorded in the service record of the petitioner and hospital record, however, the petitioner with malafide intention on the basis of forged and fabricated documents got the birth certificate of his son issued from the Municipal Council, Rawatbatta with date of birth as 04.06.2007 and obtained undue benefits. Similar allegations were levelled against some other persons also. It was stated in the application that a complaint in this regard was made to the authorities of N.P.C.I.L/ Department of Atomic Energy, Rawatbatta. The complaint was forwarded to the Police Station, Rawatbatta under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. upon which FIR No. 172/2016 was registered against the petitioner for offence under Section 420, 467, 468, 471, 477, 120B IPC.

3. Counsel for the petitioner submits in the first instance that the complainant has no locus whatsoever to file the present FIR. Further the FIR does not disclose commission of cognizable offence by the petitioner as the petitioner's son Manan was in fact born on 04.06.2006 but on a wrong advice, he filed an application at Rawatbhata for obtaining birth certificate in which date of birth was wrongly mentioned as 04.06.2007. When the petitioner came to know about this fact, he filed an application before the Municipal Council Rawatbhata for correction in the date of birth of his son upon which a fresh certificate was issued with corrected date as 04.06.2006. Thus, the complainant only with a view to harass and pressurize the petitioner, filed the present FIR. Therefore, it is prayed that the FIR No. 172/2016 may be quashed. He placed reliance on the decision rendered in the case of Prisoners Right Forum represented by its Director P. Pugalenthi Vs. State of Tamil Nadu, 2019 SCCOnline(Mad) 2476.

4. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor submits that from the case diary as well as statements and documents collected during investigation, it is prima facie clear that the petitioner did commit forgery and all the offences are prima facie made out against the petitioner. The complainant respondent no.2 present in person submits that the petitioner in order to receive undue benefits filed an application along with affidavit before the Municipal Council Rawatbhatta stating the date of birth of his son as 04.06.2007. This certificate was used by the petitioner for different purposes including the admission of his son in the school. Therefore, in these circumstances, the FIR is not liable to be quashed.

5. I have considered the rival arguments and carefully gone through the material on record.

6. It is not disputed that the son of the petitioner was born at Kota on 04.06.2006 and the petitioner already obtained certificate from Medical Officer, Bharat Vikas Parishad on the basis of which the petitioner also entered the date of birth of his son as 04.06.2006 in the service record of Nuclear Power Corporation of India Ltd. Thereafter, the petitioner filed an application along with affidavit seeking birth certificate from the Municipal Council, Rawatbhatta mentioning his date of birth as 04.06.2007 which he used for admission of his son in school. The police after investigating the matter thoroughly and obtaining record from the Government hospital, Kota and Municipality, Rawatbhatta came to the conclusion that the prima facie offences stand proved against the petitioner.

7. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Haryana & Ors. Vs. Choudhary Bhajanlal & Ors., (1992) Supp1 SCC 335, laid down guidelines for