The court can quash criminal proceedings if they are found to be an abuse of the process of law, and the material produced by the accused rules out the allegations in the charges.

ORDER :

By way of instant petition filed under Section 482 Cr.PC, prayer has been made by the petitioner for quashing of FIR No. 111, dated 12.7.2015, registered at PS Manali, District Kullu, H.P., under Sections 420, 468 and 471 of IPC, as well as consequent proceedings, if any, pending before the competent court of law.

2. Precisely, facts of the case, which may be relevant for the adjudication of the case at hand are that petitioner filed two applications dated 18.8.1999 and 4.4.2000 to the HPSEBL, praying therein for extension of load qua the connection No. GC-105 and for reduction of load with regard to connection No. GC-100 (Annexure P-2). Electricity Board while acceding to the prayer made in the aforesaid applications extended/reduced the load qua the aforesaid electricity meters. Petitioner had been using the aforesaid electricity connections in the premises from the date of their installment and there is no complaint, if any, with regard to payment of bills. On 11.7.2015, respondent No.2, who is mother of the petitioner, lodged a complaint to the SHO PS Manali (Annexure P-3), alleging therein that petitioner forged signatures of his father i.e. husband of the complainant-respondent No.2 as a witness on the applications dated 18.8.1999 and 4.4.2000. She alleged that her husband and father of the petitioner is missing since 1996 and his signatures have been forged by the petitioner on the aforesaid applications. On the basis of aforesaid complaint, FIR 111 of 2015 came to be lodged against the petitioner under Section 420 and 468 of IPC at PS Manali, District Kullu, H.P., however, police after having conducted investigation submitted the cancellation report on the ground that no offence is made out against the petitioner as the electricity board has disclosed that applications were only for increase/reduction of load and the name of the owner of meters has not been changed. It was also recorded in the cancellation report that there is no impact of signature of Shri Baldev Singh and even if some other person had put signature on behalf of Baldev as witness on the applications, there would have been no manipulation in the records. Most importantly, police observed in the cancellation report that there is a land dispute between the petitioner and respondent No.2 (Annexure P5). After receipt of the cancellation report, court below vide order dated 29.3.2017, summoned the complainant, wherein she filed objections to the cancellation report. Court having taken cognizance of the objections, ordered for reinvestigation of the case and fixed the same on 14.5.2018 for report of reinvestigation. Police after having re-investigated the case submitted the final report (Annexure P7), wherein investigating agency came to the conclusion that both the applications were submitted for extension/reduction of the load, not for changing the meters in his name. During investigation, police obtained specimen signatures of the petitioner and expert opinion was obtained from the handwriting expert, who opined that signatures of Baldev Singh have been put by the petitioner and as such, police incorporated Section 471 of IPC in the FIR. After completion of investigation, police presented challan in the competent court of law, which after having taken note of material contained in the final report submitted under Section 173 Cr.PC summoned the petitioner for 8.10.2021. In the aforesaid background, petitioner has approached this Court in the instant proceedings for quashing of FIR as well as consequent proceedings pending in the competent court of law on the ground that no case much less under Sections 420, 468 and 471 of IPC is made out against the petitioner. It has been further stated in the petition that FIR sought to be quashed in the instant proceedings discloses no offence, if any, against the petitioner.

3. Mr. Maan Singh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner while making this Court to peruse the complaint lodged by respondent No.2 (An