IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Criminal Writ Petition No. 1040 of 2009 Shri Dinesh Lal Verma ………..Petitioner Versus State of Uttarakhand and others ………….Respondents Sri Arvind Vashishth, Advocate for the petitioner. Sri S.S. Adhikari, AGA for the respondent no. 1 & 2. Dated: December 1, 2009 Hon’ble Alok Singh, J. (By the Court) Heard Sri Arvind Vashisth, Advocate for the petitioner. Sri S.S. Adhikari, learned A.G.A. for the respondent nos. 1 & 2. With the consent of both the Advocates this petition is being heard and decided finally at the admission stage. By way of present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioner has put FIR in case crime no.486 of 2009 under section 420,467,468, 471 I.P.C. P.S. Rudraprayag District Rudraprayag under challenge. As per the contents of the F.I.R., petitioner who is Sub Inspector in Uttarakhand Police moved an application on 12.07.2009 before Additional Inspector General of Police (Administration), Dehradun enclosing therewith three photo copies of the judgments acquitting him and requested ADGP to declare his result of his promotion after opening seal cover. As per direction of the Superintending of Police, Rudrapryag genuineness of the copies filled by the petitioner before ADGP was directed to be verified. On the verification from the Court, it was found that all the three cases i.e. (1) case crime no. 107/94 under section 342, 330, 380, 323, 307, 354/34 I.P.C. (2) Case Crime no.108 of 1994 under section 344, 330, 323, 217/34 IPC and (3) Case Crime no.109 of 1994 under section 346, 330, 323, 217/34 I.P.C. are pending before Competent Court of District Bijnore. Photocopies filed by the present petitioner were found to be fake and forged document. Therefore, FIR which is impugned herein was lodged against the petitioner under section 420/467/468 IPC. Sri Arvind Vashish, learned counsel for the petitioner argued that even if contents of F.I.R. may be assumed true and correct, then offence could be either under section 171 IPC or u/s 465 IPC. His further argument is that under either of the section, offence is non-cognizable. Hence in view of section 155 IPC without proper permission from the Magistrate, investigation is without jurisdiction. His second argument is that in view of section 195(1)(a)(i) of the Cr.P.C. no cognizance can be taken against the petitioner. As per contents of FIR, petitioner is said to have prepared false documents i.e. photocopies of the judgment of the Court which were never passed. The only dishonest intention to prepare and filing of the false document [the photocopies of the judgments] was to obtain promotion which otherwise headquarter would have never done. In my opinion from the contents of F.I.R offence u/s 420, 468 and 471 I.P.C. is made out. I further hold that for the offence u/s 420, 468 and 471 IPC. provisions of section 155 (2) and section 195(1)(a)(i) are not attracted. Second argument of Sri Arvind Vashistha, learned counsel for the petitioner is that petitioner has not prepared any forged documents it was his Advocate who has given this false and fabricated copies of judgments for which he has taken action against the Advocate. I find, petitioner is sub inspector in civil police of Uttarakhand. He must be having knowledge of court proceedings. It is settle principles of law that every accused person shall remain present in-person in the Court at the time of every haring unless his absence is exempted. This is not a case that his Advocate has ever sought any permission to exempt his absence at the time of passing of alleged judgments. It seems accused himself has prepared fabricated and false documents and story to take action against his Advocate is after thought just to save his skin. In view of this petitioners is not entitle for any relief. In view of the above discussion, no interference is called for. Writ petition is dismissed. (Alok Singh, J.) 01.12.2009 JKJ