ORDER

This order shall govern disposal of all aforementioned three cases. For the sake of convenience facts as elaborated in M.Cr.C No. 55531/2021 are taken note of.

2 . This petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C has been filed seeking quashment of charge-sheet filed against the petitioner vide Crime No. 105/2012 for the offences registered under Sections 465, 471, 181, 120-B, 467 and 468 of Indian Penal Code and Section 30 of the Arms Act at Police Station Lanji, District Balaghat. Petitioner in M.Cr.C No. 19997/2023 is seeking quashment of the criminal proceeding pending against him in connection with Crime No. 105/2012 registered at Police Station Lanji, District Balaghat and ensued proceedings.

3 . The petitioner, Shevendra Singh Parihar, moved an application for grant of license of revolver/pistol. In various columns of the application, the petitioner was required to give details pertaining to his place of abode, pendency of criminal case, if any, etc. Upon submitting the application along with enclosures, the license was issued to the petitioner. Later on it was found by the prosecution that the license was obtained while suppressing various material information and also furnishing false information, thus the license which was granted to the petitioner was cancelled and the case in question was registered against the present petitioner. The case was initially registered under Section 465, 471, 181, 120-B of Indian Penal Code and Section 30 of the Arms Act and later on offence under Section 467 and 468 of Indian Penal Code were also added. Thus, seeking quashment of F.I.R , charge-sheet and ensued proceedings this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C has been filed.

4. In M.Cr.C No. 19997/2023, the petitioner who was Sarpanch at the relevant time had issued a Ration Card as well as certificate in favour of the petitioner, is also being prosecuted as said certificate and ration card were used, according to prosecution, while submitting application for grant of license.

5. Senior Counsel Shri Manish Datt submits that in the present case, the FI.R. if considered in its entirety, the same would reveal that the allegation against the applicant is that he suppressed the material information and also gave false information while applying for grant of license. It is contended by the counsel that the entire F.I.R and the documents filed along with charge-

sheet, no where contains any allegation that the present applicant forged any documents. It is contended by the counsel that there is an allegation of forgery of document but the F.I.R conspicuously lacks in the details of a particular document which according to the prosecution was forged by the present applicant. Counsel contends that suppression of information is entirely different than forging a document. It is contended by the counsel that even assuming some information which was required to be furnished in the prescribed format which is submitted in accordance with Form A, (Rule 51 of the Arms Rules, 1962), was not given or incorrectly given, the consequences of such suppression or non furnishing of information were mentioned in the declaration which is contained in the application as well as the warning which is available just below the declaration. Counsel while taking this Court to the declaration as well as warning contained in application form contends that a perusal of declaration specifically reveals that the eventualities of suppression of information and submission of false information were taken note by the Legislature by providing a prescribed format of the application for the purposes of grant of license. Therefore, suppression of information in an application form which is submitted in terms of Form A (Rule 51 of Arms Rules, 1962) at the most, the prosecution under Section 30 of the Arms Act could have been launched. However, by no stretch of imagination any offence under Sections 465, 471, 467 and 468, 120-B, of Indian Penal Code could have