IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Crl. Misc. Application (C-482) No. 291 of 2005 Goverdhan S/o Om Pal R/o Village Brhampuri P.S. Ranipur, District Haridwar. ...…………. Petitioner Versus 1. State of Uttaranchal / Uttarakhand 2. Judicial Magistrate (1st Class) Roorkee, District Haridwar. 3. Smt. Sangeeta D/o Ilam Chand R/o Village Tanda Kalyanpur, P.S. Roorkee, District Haridwar. ...…………. Respondents Mr. Parikshit Saini and Mr. Mohd. Safdar, Advocates, present for the petitioners. Mr. M.A. Khan, Brief Holder, present for the State. Mr. Naresh Pant, Advocate, present for respondent No. 3 / complainant. Hon’ble Prafulla C. Pant, J. By means of this petition, moved under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short Cr.P.C.), the petitioner has sought quashing of the proceedings of Criminal Case No. 180 of 2005, State Vs. Goverdhan, relating to offences punishable under Section 420, 468, 472 of I.P.C., pending in the court of Judicial Magistrate, Roorkee, District Haridwar. 2) Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the papers on record. 3) Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the impugned criminal proceedings are initiated in respect of a document which is allegedly filed by the petitioner in a court of law in Criminal Case No. 2986 of 2003, State Vs. Goverdhan and others, relating to offences punishable under Section 498-A, 323, 504 of I.P.C., and one punishable under Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, pending in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Haridwar, alleging that the document filed in said proceeding is forged. 4) Attention of this Court is drawn to sub-clause (ii) of clause (b) of Section 195 of Cr.P.C. which provides that no court shall take cognizance of any offence described in Section 463, or punishable under Section 471, Section 475 or Section 476 of the Code, when such offence is alleged to have been committed in respect of a document produced or given in evidence in a proceeding in any court except on the complaint in writing of that court by such official of the court as that court may authorize in writing in this behalf, or some other court to which that court is subordinate. 5) Perusal of the copy of the first information report lodged by respondent No. 3 shows that the crime alleged by the complainant is registered in respect of offences punishable under Section 420, 468 and 472 of I.P.C. Copy of the charge sheet shows that the Investigating Officer has submitted charge sheet in respect of all the three offences. Summoning order dated 04.02.2005 also shows that the Judicial Magistrate has summoned the petitioner to face the trial in respect of offences punishable under Section 420, 468 and 472 of I.P.C. 6) Section 420 of I.P.C. relates to cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property. It provides that whoever cheats and thereby dishonestly induces the person deceived to deliver any property to any person, or to make, alter or destroy the whole or any part of a valuable security, or anything which is signed or sealed, and which is capable of being converted into a valuable security, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine. 7) The alleged forged document said to have been filed in the Criminal Case No. 2986 of 2003 is the copy of the medical certificate purporting to have been issued by the Medical Officer of St. Joseph Hospital, Civil Lines, Roorkee, in which entry of name of the father of the child born is alleged (by the complainant) to be wrongly mentioned as ‘Meetar’. The document filed has nothing to do with the inducement of delivery of property. As such, even if the allegations made in the first information report and the prosecution case are taken to be true, ingredients of offence punishable under Section 420 of I.P.C. are not made out. 8) As far as the offence punishable under Section 468 of I.P.C. is concerned, it provides punishment in respect of offence of forgery for the purposes of cheating. Since, in the present case, the ingredients of cheating are not made out (even if the allegations made by the complainant are taken to be true) the ingredients of this offence i.e. 468 of I.P.C., cannot be said to have been made out. Section 468 of I.P.C. provides that whoever commits forgery, intending that the document or electronic record forged shall be used for the purpose of cheating, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine. 9) So far as the offence punishable under Section 472 of I.P.C. is concerned, it is evident from the record that neither the police while registering the case, nor the Magistrate while summoning the accused, have at all applied their mind to the facts of the case. Section 472 of I.P.C. relates to an offence of making or possessing counterfeit seal, etc., with intent to commit forgery punishable under Section 467 of I.P.C. It provides that whoever makes or counterfeits any seal, plate or other instrument for making an impression, intending that the same shall be used for the purpose of committing any forgery which would be punishable under Section 467 of this Code, or, with such intent, has in his possession of any such seal, plate or other instrument, knowing the same to be counterfeit, shall be punished with imprisonment for life, or with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine. 10) Apart from this, prosecution in respect of these two offences, namely Section 468 and 472 of I.P.C. are covered under sub-clause (ii) of clause (b) of Section 195(1) of Cr.P.C. as in respect of any offence described in Section 463 of I.P.C., cognizance cannot be taken by any court in respect of document filed in the court except on the complaint in writing by that court, or by another court, or by the person authorized by the court. Since, both the sections 468 and 472 of I.P.C. relate to forgery which is defined in Section 463 of I.P.C., as such, both stand covered under sub-clause (ii) of clause (b) of sub-section (1) of Section 195 of Cr.P.C. Section 463 of I.P.C. provides that whoever makes any false document or false electronic record or part of a document or electronic record, with intent to cause damage or injury, to the public or to any person, or to support any claim or title, or to cause any person to part with property, or to enter into any express or implied contract, or with intent to commit fraud or that fraud may be committed, commits forgery. 11) For the reasons as discussed above, this Court is satisfied that none of the three offences for which the petitioner has been summoned by the trial court to stand trial, even if the allegations made against the petitioner are taken to be true are made out, as such, the impugned criminal proceedings are liable to be quashed. Accordingly, the petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. is allowed, and the proceedings of Criminal Case No. 180 of 2005, State Vs. Goverdhan, relating to offences punishable under Section 420, 468, 472 of I.P.C., pending in the court of Judicial Magistrate, Roorkee, are hereby quashed with the observation that this order would not prejudice the rights of the parties in Criminal Case No. 2986 of 2003, State Vs. Goverdhan and others, pending in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Haridwar, where the document is said to have been filed. (Prafulla C. Pant, J.) Dt. July 01, 2010. H. Negi