The court cannot quash charges if the allegations prima facie constitute an offense, leaving the resolution to the trial court.

ORDER

The petitioner is the 1^st accused in C.C.No.264/2022 on the file of the Court of the Judicial First-Class Magistrate, Angamaly (Trial Court), which has originated from Crime No.903/2021 registered by the Nedumbassery Airport Police Station, Ernakulam, alleging the commission of the offences punishable under Sections 465 and 471 r/w Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 .

2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that; to enable the 1^st accused to pursue an Msc IBM course in the United Kingdom, the 3^rd accused fabricated a Secondary School Certificate of the Maharashtra State Board of Secondary Education and a Provisional Certificate and mark list issued by Madurai Kamaraj University, and handed over the documents to the 1^st accused with the assistance of the 2^nd accused. Using the afore fabricated documents, the 1^st accused secured a visa to travel to the United Kingdom. However, CW1, while examining the documents at the Nedumbassery International Airport and on suspecting the document to be fabricated, did not permit the 1^st accused to travel abroad.

3. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently argues that, even if the allegations in Annexure- A1 FIR and Annexure A2 final report are taken on their face value, the same will not attract the offences alleged against the petitioner. Going by the allegations in the above documents, it is the 3^rd accused who has fabricated the said documents. The Investigating Officer has not ascertained the genuineness of the documents. Instead, he has just conducted the investigation solely based on the allegations in Annexure- A1 FIR, which substantiate the malafides in the investigation. Even if the petitioner withstands the ordeal of trial, it will not lead to his conviction. Therefore, the entire proceedings may be quashed.

5. The learned Public Prosecutor seriously opposes the Criminal M.C. She submits that the documents were fabricated by the 3^rd accused for the bene Making use of the said documents, the petitioner obtained a visa and attempted to travel to the United Kingdom. At the airport, CW1 suspecting the documents to be fabricated, did not permit the petitioner to travel abroad. The investigation has revealed the documents to be fabricated. This Court may not embark on a mini trial and conclude that the documents are not fabricated. Ultimately, the documents were fabricated only to enable the petitioner to travel abroad.

Hence, the Crl.M.C may be dismissed.

6. The essence of the prosecution case is that, the

3^rd accused fabricated documents of two Universities in favour of the petitioner, who in turn used the said documents to travel to the United Kingdom for the purpose of pursuing a Msc IBM Course. On finding that the documents to be fabricated, CW1 did not permit the petitioner to travel abroad.

7. In Annexure-A2 final report, the prosecution has relied on 8 witnesses and has also produced the materials to substantiate that the petitioner has committed the above offences.

8. The contention that, as the documents were allegedly fabricated by the 2^nd accused, the petitioner cannot be fastened with any criminal liability is untenable because , prima facie, it is apparent that the documents were fabricated for the petitioner’s benefit. Moreover, the materials relied on by the prosecution in the final report also prima facie establishes the petitioner’s culpability in the crime.

9. It is well-settled that this Court has broad plenary powers under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 , to quash criminal proceedings. However, such inherent power, though