IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH Criminal Miscellaneous No. M-24348 of 2011 (O & M) Date of Decision: September 15, 2011 Pawan Kumar .....PETITIONER(S) VERSUS State of Punjab .....RESPONDENT(S) . . . CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA PRESENT: - Mr. B.D. Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioner. . . . AJAI LAMBA, J (Oral) 1. This petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. prays for quashing FIR No.178 dated 3.8.2010 (Annexure P-1) under Sections 420, 465, 467, 468, 471, 120-B IPC, registered with Police Station, Division No.4, Jalandhar; and final report filed by the investigating agency under Section 173 Cr.P.C. that has been placed on record as Annexure P-2. 2. As per the allegations in the FIR, secret information was received. The secret informant informed the police officials that Raj Kumar Sharma son of Brij Mohan Sharma and Rahul Babbar son of Anand Bhushan Babbar are running an organization by the name of “The Crl. Misc. No. M-24348 of 2011 [2] Flight Linker” and are indulged in preparing forged documents such as birth certificates, school leaving certificates, forged bank account statements, bank certificates etc. for sending innocent people abroad. A large sum of money is taken from them. If a raid is conducted, the papers can be recovered. Believing the information to be true and relevant, raid was conducted. 3. As per Annexure P-2 i.e. challan, when search on the premises of Rahul Babbar was conducted, school leaving certificate of the petitioner was recovered which has been found to be forged. It has been concluded by the investigating agency that the petitioner, at the time of applying for passport, had appended a school leaving certificate that was forged. 4. Considering the fact that culpability of the petitioner is made out, on perusal of final report filed under Section 173 Cr.P.C., no ground for interference is made out. 5. The petition is dismissed. 6. The petitioner, however, would be at liberty to take the plea that offence could have been registered under Section 12 of The Passports Act, 1967 and for that purpose, proper sanction has not been taken. 7. This Court trusts that the Trial Court dealing with the issue of charge, shall take into account the argument addressed on behalf of the petitioner and pass a reasoned and speaking order. (AJAI LAMBA) September 15, 2011 JUDGE avin Crl. Misc. No. M-24348 of 2011 [3] 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?