An FIR can be quashed if it does not prima facie disclose a cognizable offence, requiring sufficient evidence to sustain allegations of forgery and intimidation.

JUDGMENT :

Rakesh Kainthla, J.

Respondent No.2 (informant) made a complaint to the police that he was married to petitioner No.3 on 8.3.2011. One son, Anyun Sharma was born to the parties on 22.10.2016 in a private hospital. The informant came to know after the birth of his son that the parents of Umang Sharma (wife of the petitioner) had mentioned that a girl Mishri Sharma was born to Umang and the informant on 30.8.2012 at his home i.e. Bhagat Kutir, Ward No.4, Vikas Nagar, Una. Shanti Swaroop, father-in-law of the informant reported the birth of Mishri in Nagar Panchayat, Chowari, in which report Suresh Kumar was shown as the father of Mishri Sharma. Umang Sharma was present on duty on 30.8.2012, before that day and after that day. Umang Sharma, Shant Swaroop and Vijay Kumari had forged the documents in connivance with the Secretary of the Gram Panchayat. Umang Sharma had taken maternity leave at the time of the birth of Anyun Sharma, whereas no such leave was taken at the time of the birth of Mishri. Whenever the informant goes to Chowari to meet his son, Umang Sharma and her parents do not allow him to enter the house. They threaten to call the police and kill the informant and his mother. The police registered the FIR based on the information of the informant.

2. The petitioners filed the present petition for seeking quashing of the FIR. It was asserted that the marriage between the informant and petitioner No.3 was solemnized on 8.3.2011. She was working on PTA basis in Chamba District. She continued to live with her parents at Chowari. The informant was visiting the petitioner No.3 in her parental home. The informant and petitioner No.3 mutually decided to adopt a child. Smt. Guddo Devi was pregnant and she had three children. She agreed to give her child for adoption. The informant agreed to this proposal. Guddo Devi gave birth to a female child on 30.8.2012. The informant asked the petitioner No.3 to bring the child to her home. He also advised her to get the name of the child registered at Chowari. He also instructed that the name of the child should not be entered into the family of Guddo Devi and no formal adoption deed should be prepared. He was apprehensive that in case the real facts came to the knowledge of the child, it would affect her adversely. Petitioner No.3 got pregnant in the year 2016 and gave birth to a male child. The informant advised that the name of the child should be registered at Chowari. The informant started pressurising petitioner No.3 to hand over Mishri Sharma to her parents. Petitioner No.3 did not agree to this proposal. The informant reported the matter to the police. He subsequently said that he had withdrawn the complaint filed by him; however, the petitioners came to know from the summons that the complaint was not withdrawn and the challan was filed before the Court. The police did not conduct the investigation properly. The contents of the FIR do not disclose the commission of the offence. The informant knew about the facts and lodged a false FIR. The incident had not taken place at Una and the police at Una had no jurisdiction to carry out the investigation and f