IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.54630 of 2007 SANTOSH KUMAR, S/O Sri Chandan Kumar Singh, resident of Village- Chandrahi, Hajari Tola, P.S. Dhamdaha, District-Purnea......Petitioner. Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR...............................................Opposite Party. ----------- For the petitioner: Mr. Baidyanath Prasad, Advocate. For the State : Mr. Umesh Lal Verma, A.P.P. ---------- 03. 26.03.2010. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State. The present application has been filed for quashing the entire proceeding of the First Information Report of Kotwali(University) P.S. Case No. 724 of 2006 which was registered under Sections 420, 468,474 and 120(B) of the Indian Penal Code on 11.11.2006. The contention of the petitioner is that in the First Information Report it is alleged that the petitioner submitted the mark sheet which reflects that he has secured First Class in the matriculation examination whereas he has only passed in Second Division. It is contended by the petitioner that he never submitted any mark sheet to the effect that he secured First Division in the 2 matriculation examination hence, under misconception petitioner’s name has been referred in the instant First Information Report. Since the substantive case, the Kotwali (University) P.S. Case No. 724 of 2006 under Sections 420, 468, 474 and 120(B) of the Indian Penal Code was registered on 11.11.2006 in which petitioner has been named with allegation that he submitted mark sheet to the effect that he secured First Class whereas he passed the matriculation examination in Second Class, I am not inclined to interfere, moreover, learned counsel for the petitioner has failed to inform the present stage of the investigation/trial of the case. After going through the materials on record, I find that a substantive case has been lodged and any interference at this stage will amount to interfering the statutory duty of the police to investigate the case. Hence, the present quashing application is dismissed. However, the petitioner may challenge the outcome of 3 investigation or the consequential orders passed by this Court at appropriate forum. U.K. (Dinesh Kumar Singh,J)