The court held that an FIR cannot be quashed if it discloses cognizable offences, and allegations of mala fide do not suffice for quashing proceedings.

JUDGMENT :

Rakesh Kainthla, J.

The petitioner has filed the present petition for quashing of F.I.R. 0034 of 2022 dated 19.11.2022, registered for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) at Police Station Udaipur, District Lahaul & Spiti, H.P. (The parties shall hereinafter be referred to in the same manner as they are arrayed before the learned Trial Court for convenience)

2. Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to the present petition are that the informant made a complaint to the police, asserting that the accused is an illiterate person and had supplied fake certificates at the time of his recruitment to the Indian Army. He served in the Indian Army based on such fake certificates. He cheated the government with these forged certificates. The police registered the F.I.R., conducted the investigation and filed a charge sheet before the learned Trial Court after completion of the investigation.

3. Being aggrieved by the registration of F.I.R. and filing of the charge-sheet, the petitioner has filed the present petition for quashing of the F.I.R. and consequent charge-sheet. It was asserted that the petitioner was recruited in the Indian Army on 13.07.1984 after studying up to the 6^th class. He served the Nation for 17 years in different parts of the country. The houses of the informant and the petitioner are located adjacent to each other. The informant/respondent No.2 extended the roof of his house towards the house of the petitioner, which caused serious damage during the rainy season to the house of the petitioner. The petitioner brought this fact to the notice of the informant and requested him to make proper arrangements for the proper discharge of the water, however, the informant quarrelled with the petitioner. The petitioner made a complaint to the Pradhan Gram Panchayat of Udaipur. Pradhan visited the spot and advised the informant to remove the extended portion of the roof. However, the informant did not adhere to this advice. Hence, the petititoner filed a civil suit against the informant. The informant also misbehaved with the petitioner on 16.09.2022. He reported the matter to the Executive Engineer, HPPWD, Udaipur; however, no action was taken, and the petitioner approached the Chairman-cum-Managing Director, HP Ex-servicemen Corporation, Hamirpur. The informant filed a false complaint as a counterblast to the complaints made by the petitioner. The petitioner has studied up to sixth class, and Prem Singh Thakur, who taught him during his primary education issued a certificate to this effect. The police had also written a letter to the Army authorities, who replied that the authenticity of the certificates was examined by the Enrolling Officer. The certificates of the petitioner were lost during the accident in 2005. Therefore, it was prayed that the present petition be allowed and the F.I.R., as well as consequential proceedings, be quashed.

4. The petition is opposed by filing a status report reproducing the contents of the F.I.R. It was asserted that a certified copy of the admission and withdrawal register from 1971 to November 1994 was obtained from the school; however, the name of the petitioner/accused was not found in the record. The Army officials stated that certificates were returned to the petitioner at the time of his discharge. The accused was asked to produce the certificate, but he failed to produce it. . It was found after the investigation that the petitioner had produced a forged document regarding his qualifications. Hence, the charge sheet was filed before the learned Trial Court against the petitioner. The matter was listed before the learned Trial Court on 08.01.2025.

5. I have heard Ms. Niranjana, learned vice counsel, vice Mr. Subhash Mohan Snehi, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Lokender Kutlehria, Additional Advocate General, for respondent No.1/State.

6. Ms. Niranjana learned vice counsel representing the petitioner/