JUDGMENT

1. The present application is filed for quashing of the FIR being C.R. No.11208055220187 of 2022 registered with D. C. B. Police Station, Rajkot City for the offence punishable under Sections 406, 420, 465, 468, 471 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code.

2. As per the case of the complainant, who is Police Inspector, D.C.B. Police Station, Rajkot that the present applicant along with, in connivance with the other 4 accused named in the FIR, had created the afÏliation certificates of the school of the Board of Higher Secondary Education, Delhi, opened different schools in the year 2017-2018, opened 57 schools in the year 2017-2018, and had issued bogus mark sheets, where the investigation is concluded and the charge-sheet is filed against all the accused.

3. Heard learned advocate Mr. Hannan A. Qureshi for the applicant and learned APP Ms. Shah for the State.

4. It is submitted by learned advocate Mr. Qureshi that the present applicant came to be appointed as a temporary secretary in the year 2021 on the death of the original trustee, namely Ashok Lakhani. It is further submitted by learned advocate Mr. Qureshi that as per the order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi in O.A. No.2622 of 2014, it is clarified that Board of Higher Secondary Education, Delhi, is autonomous body which is registered under the Indian Society Act, 1982 and the Board is recognized under the Uttar Pradesh Education Act, 1921. It is further submitted by learned advocate Mr. Qureshi that status with regard to the recognition is the subject matter of the challenge before the High Court at Delhi.

4.1 It is submitted by learned advocate Mr. Qureshi that as per the allegations made in the FIR as well as the charge-sheet, the period of the alleged offence is stated to be 01.01.2019 and the FIR came to be filed on 12.05.2022, which is belated after the period of 3 years and in that background, it is submitted to quash and set aside the FIR which is stated to be a misuse of the process of law. It is also submitted by learned advocate Mr. Qureshi that Uttar Pradesh Intermediate Education Act, Shiksha Vibhag, of the year 2005, 2006, 2010, 2011 and 2013, technical examination was conducted by the Higher Secondary Education, Delhi, which is equivalent with the examination conducted by the Board of High School and Intermediate Education, Allahabad. It is submitted by learned advocate Mr. Qureshi that as per the RTI information provided to the students, it is clearly mentioned that students who have passed the Board of Higher Secondary Education, Delhi, are eligible to take the admission for higher education in the colleges in Uttar Pradesh. In that background, it is submitted by learned advocate Mr. Qureshi that even if the afÏliation of the Higher Secondary Board is not taken into consideration, the certificates issued cannot be said to be forged.

5. Per contra, learned APP Ms. Shah has pointed out that during the course of investigation, the search was carried out of the ofÏce of the present applicant and various fake certificates were found, suggesting that the active involvement of the present applicant and the matter which is affecting to the society at large, is required to be tried by the learned Trial Court and in that background, the present application deserves to be rejected.

6. Considering the above submissions made by the learned advocates for the respective parties and on referring to the FIR as well as the charge-sheet which are filed against the 11 accused, wherein the present applicant was shown as accused No.1, as per brief stated in the last column of the charge-sheet as under :

“The details of offence is such like that under IPC Sections 406, 420, 465, 467, 468, 471, 120B and Information Technology Act Sections 66(D), 74, from among the accused mentioned in Column No. (1), Accused No. (2) and (5), as well as the accused mentioned in Column No. (2), Accused No. (1) and (2), hatched a pre-planned crimin