IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL CRIMINAL MISC. APPLICATION NO.371 OF 2008 (U/s 482 of Cr.P.C.) Rajendra Singh …………Applicant Versus State of Uttarakhand and another …………Respondents Dated: August 12, 2010 Mr. Siddhartha Singh, Advocate for the applicant Mr. Amit Bhatt, Addl. GA for the State Mr. Lok Pal Singh, Advocate for respondent no.2 HON. DHARAM VEER, J. By means of this petition, moved under Section 482 of The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short Cr.P.C.), the petitioner/applicant has sought quashing of charge sheet dated 14.5.2008 as well as the cognizance order dated 5.6.2008 passed by Judicial Magistrate, Roorkee, District Haridwar in Case No.137/2008, State v. Rajendra Singh, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, IPC). Heard learned counsel for the applicant and perused the affidavit, counter affidavit and rejoinder affidavit. In brief, the prosecution case is that respondent no.2 Devi Chand moved an application u/s 156(3) of Cr.P.C. before Judicial Magistrate, Rookee stating therein that he is senior lecturer in C.M.D. Inter College, Churiyawala and, being senior, he was made officiating Principal in the College. It is further stated that the applicant who was appointed on 25.2.1977 as Assistant Teacher was also posted as Lecturer in the same College. It is alleged that the applicant by forging the documents and making a forge entry in agenda register in his own handwriting, got himself promoted to the post of Lecturer on 1.1.1982 without completing the mandatory period of five 2 years as Assistant Teacher which was going to be completed on 24.2.1982. It is further alleged that the applicant, on being promoted by forgery, is getting salary for the post of lecturer since 1.1.1982 and has thus misused the government funds. With the same averments, respondent no.2 moved the present application u/s 156(3) of Cr.P.C. and got registered a First Information Report at P.S. Bhagwanpur, District Haridwar on 27.10.2007 under Sections 420, 467, 468, 469 and 471 of IPC against the applicant. After lodging of the FIR, the matter was investigated and on completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed against the applicant under Sections 420, 465, 468 and 471 of IPC in the court, on the basis of which, learned Judicial Magistrate, Roorkee vide his order dated 5.6.2008 took the cognizance of the offence under Sections 420, 467, 468 and 471 of IPC against the applicant. Against the said charge sheet and the cognizance order dated 5.6.2008, the applicant has preferred the present application u/s 482 of Cr.P.C. before this Court. Counter affidavits have been filed by the State as well as by respondent no.2 in which the averments made in the C482 application have been denied. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the said case by respondent no.2. Contrary to this, learned counsel for respondent no.2 has stated that, in order to be promoted as Lecturer, the applicant forged a certified copy of the resolution no.2 and dispatched the same vide letter dated 7.1.1982 written by himself in his own handwriting. He further argued that the applicant also forged an approval order dated 25.1.1982. Learned Additional Government Advocate for the State also stated that during the course of investigation, the I.O. tried to take the letter no.17889/81-82 dated 25.1.1982 from the office of District Education Officer as well as the office of the said school but the same letter was not traced out from both the offices which means the letter was forged one. He 3 further submitted that during the course of investigation, the I.O. recorded the statement of witnesses and collected sufficient evidence against the applicant and thereafter he submitted charge sheet against the applicant. From a perusal of the contents of the complaint and after going through other papers available in file, I am of the view that prima facie the offences punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468 and 471 of IPC are made out against the applicant. Even otherwise, the trial court will decide the case after recording the evidence of the complainant as well as of the accused and also on the basis of the appreciation of the evidence as per law. It is well settled that while exercising jurisdiction under section 482 of the Cr.P.C., this Court would not ordinarily embark upon the enquiry as to whether the evidence in question is reliable or not or whether on a reasonable appreciation of it accusation would not be sustained. That is the function of the trial court. If the allegations made in the First Information Report are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety, I am of the view that cognizance of the aforesaid offences is rightly taken against the applicant. The trial court will decide the case after recording the evidence adduced before it. I am of the view that in the present case there is neither any miscarriage of justice nor any abuse of process of court. For the reasons recorded above, there is no force in the application. The C482 application, being devoid of merit, is dismissed accordingly. Interim order dated 17.6.2008 stands vacated. (Dharam Veer, J.) 12.8.2010 RG