Case Facts:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Writ No.203 of 2012 ====================================================== Rajanand Paswan, S/O Shri Khokhai Paswan, R/O Vill- Masunda, P.S- Sikti, Distt- Araria, Bihar. .... .... Petitioner. Versus 1. The State of Bihar 2. The District Magistrate, Araria. 3. The District Education Officer, Araria. 4. The District Programme Officer, (Establishment), Araria. 5. The Block Development Officer, Araria, District Araria. 6. The Block Education Extension Officer, Araria, Distt- Araria. 7. The Superintendent of Police, Araria. 8. The Station House Officer, Kursakanta Police Station, Araria. .... .... Respondents. ====================================================== Appearance: For the Petitioner : Mr. Mrigank Mauli, Adv. Mr. Sanjay Kumar Sharma, Adv. Mr. Sanjay Kumar, Adv. For the Respondents : Mr. Dhirdyuti Kumar Verma, AC to SC-27 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR TRIVEDI C.A.V. ORDER 3. 17-07-2012 Petitioner / accused has prayed for quashing of First Information Report of Kursakanta P.S. Case No. 7/2012 registered under [STATUTE] . Shorn of unnecessary details, the case as comes out from the written report filed by Ram Dayal Sharma, Block Education Officer, Kursakanta putting an allegation against the petitioner is that he had filed fake, forged document showing his date of birth as 09.05.1973 while on proper verification it was found to be 07.02.1971. Petitioner had claimed appointment on the basis of Madhayama Certificate equivalent to matriculate examination wherein his date of birth has been shown as -2- 10.06.1974. Accordingly, after proper inquiry made by District Programme Officer, (Establishment), Araria had directed vide letter no.356 dated 09.11.2011 for institution of case against the petitioner. Contention on behalf of the petitioner is that whatever allegation has been attributed is all false, concocted and is motivated one at the instance of his enemies. Then submitted that the instant prosecution happens to be premature in the light of the fact that petitioner had already challenged authenticity of letter no.356 dated 09.11.2011 under C.W.J.C. No.1514 of 2012 which is still pending. Further submitted that petitioner was appointed after having his certificate properly verified by the authorities concerned and nothing abnormality was found. Therefore, subsequently tracing out an imaginary story disclosing that the age of the petitioner has been found different at different occasion at different school is not at all tenable as the petitioner had passed Madhayama examination and the date of birth whatever been shown in the Madhayama certificate happens to be the real date of birth to be used as a document in true sense. So submitted that instant prosecution happens to be bad and is fit to be quashed. At the other hand the learned AC to SC-27 opposed the prayer and submitted that the fraudulent act of petitioner was -3- detected during on enquiry conducted by competent authority which attracts relevant penal provision, hence the prayer of the petitioner is not at all maintainable. In a decision reported in 2010 Criminal Law Journal page 379 at para-12, it has been held:- “Further it is well settled that neither power under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 nor jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India can be exercised by the High Court to quash the complaint if prima facie commission of offence is made out.” From the narration of the complaint petition, for the present without prejudicing to the interest of the petitioner for the future subject to finding of C.W.J.C. No.1514/2012 a prima facie case is visualizing on account of different date of birth at different occasion which was intentionally suppressed by the petitioner to secure illegal gain. Therefore, the prayer so made on behalf of petitioner for the present is found to be non-maintainable and is accordingly dismissed. PN/- (Aditya Kumar Trivedi, J.)

Applicable IPC Section: 467

Statute Text:
Section 467 of the Indian Penal Code. Forgery of a valuable security, will or authority to make or transfer any valuable security, or to receive any money, etc. Whoever forges a document which purports to be a valuable security or a will, or an authority to adopt a son, or which purports to give authority to any person to make or transfer any valuable security, or to receive the principal, interest or dividends thereon, or to receive or deliver any money, movable property, or valuable security, or any document purporting to be an acquittance or receipt acknowledging the payment of money, or an acquittance or receipt for the delivery of any movable property or valuable security, shall be punished with imprisonment for life, or with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.