FIR alleging forgery and cheating discloses cognizable offences precluding quashing under CrPC Section 482 despite compromise or mala fides claims; bail cancellation requires proven misuse or supervening circumstances, not unverified allegations.

JUDGMENT :

RAKESH KAINTHLA, J.

1. The petitioner has filed the present petition for quashing of FIR No. 7 of 2024, dated 12.1.2024, registered at Police Station Jhakri, District Shimla, HP, for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and consequential proceedings arising out of it.

(Parties shall hereinafter be referred to in the same manner as they were arrayed before the learned Trial Court for convenience.)

2. Brief facts, giving rise to the present petition, are that the informant made a complaint asserting that Government Primary School, Shiti, Tehsil Rampur, District Shimla, HP, invited applications for the post of Water Carrier in the year 1994. The informant applied for the post, and nobody else had filed an application for the post; however, the petitioner/accused was appointed as a Water Carrier. The informant protested, but no action was taken. The petitioner belongs to the Rajput caste, but she submitted a false certificate of a scheduled caste and a forged school-leaving certificate. She mentioned herself as the wife of Babu Ram in the record. The police registered the FIR and investigated the matter.

3. Being aggrieved from the registration of the FIR, the petitioner filed the present petition, asserting that the informant had filed a Civil Writ Petition No. 874 of 1995. The petitioner remained posted in various schools, and she retired after attaining the age of superannuation on 30.4.2024. The informant entered into a compromise with the petitioner on 2.2.2024, which was duly attested by the Notary Public. The FIR was lodged with an ulterior motive to deprive the petitioner of retiral benefits by concealing the fact that the appointment of the petitioner was challenged earlier in a writ petition. Therefore, it was prayed that the present petition be allowed and the FIR be quashed.

4. The respondent No.1 filed a reply making a preliminary submission regarding the lack of maintainability. The contents of FIR were reproduced. It was asserted that the police conducted the investigation and found that the petitioner does not belong to the scheduled caste. She was married to Kalu Ram. She showed herself as the wife of Babu Ram in the joining letter. She had used a forged School Leaving Certificate. The investigation is continuing. The FIR discloses the offence against society. There is no provision for compromise. Hence, it was prayed that the present petition be dismissed.

5. The informant/respondent No. 2 also filed a separate reply making a preliminary submission regarding the lack of maintainability. It was asserted that Civil Writ Petition No. 874 of 1995 pertained to the appointment by relaxation of the Rules. The authenticity of the documents produced by the petitioner was not challenged, as the informant was not aware of the submission of forged documents. The compromise was effected by pressurising the informant, and this fact was communicated to SHO, Police Station Jhakri and Superintendent of Police, Shimla. The petitioner is trying to pressurise the informant with the help of her husband, son and other rela