JUDGMENT Ravindra Singh, J.
1. Heard Sri Bhagwant Pzrasad, Raj Nath Bhakta and Om Prakash Yadav, learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A.
2. This application is filed with the following prayers:
"(i) stay the proceeding of the Criminal Case No. 187 of 2005, State v. Anil Singh, Under Sections 419, 420, 467, 466 and 471 I.P.C. P.S. Anpare, District Sonbhadra, arising out of Case Crime No. 363/04, Under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468 and 471 I.P.C. State v. Anil Singh, P.S.-Anpara, District Sonbhadra.
(ii) set the applicant free on his personal bond, or admit him to ball;
(iii) pass any other order or direction deemed by the Hon'ble Court just and proper in the interest of justice."
3. It is contended by the learned counsel for the applicant that an F.I.R. was lodged against the applicant by opposite party No. 8 Shri Gorakh Nath Yadav, Station Officer of 'Police Station Anpara, District Sonbhadra on 24.1.1.2004 in Case Crime No. 363 of 2004 in which after investigation, the charge sheet dated 20.1.2005 has been submitted in the court of learned Magistrate against the applicant for the offence punishable under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468 and 471 I.P.C. The applicant is in jail in the aforesaid offences.
4. It is contended that the allegations made against the applicant ore false and concocted. He has not forged any document but the fraud has been played upon him by his counsel Sri Manoj Kumar Srivastava, Advocate, he has handed over the alleged forged documents. It is said that the applicant produced the alleged forged order at the police Station concerned. On the basis of that forged order, Private Bus No. U.P. 64C-2764 was released to the applicant or 13.11.2004. Thereafter, the police came to know that the bus was released in favour of the applicant on the basis of the forged order, so the aforesaid bus was again intercepted by the police and lodged an F.I.R. against the applicant on 24.11.20C4. The alleged forged order was not prepared by the applicant but it was given to him by his counsel Sri Manoj Kumar Srivastava, Advocate. If there is any forgery, it has been committed by the counsel for the applicant and the applicant has not having any knowledge that the forged order has been given to him by his counsel because he was believing on his counsel. It is further contended that in the present case, no proper investigation has been made by the Investigating Officer because no charge-sheet has been submitted against Sri Manoj Kumar Srivastava, Advocate and without doing proper enquiry, the charge-sheet has been submitted against the applicant. It is further contended that the forged order of the court has been filed at the Police Station in pursuance of that order, the bus was released in favour of the applicant, so the forgery is in respect of the court proceedings. In such circumstances, the F.I.R. or the complaint ought to have been lodged by the court concerned or some other court to which that court was subordinate but in the present case, the F.I.R. was not lodged by the competent authority, it was lodged by the Station Officer. So the F.I.R., its investigation and the charge-sheet submitted by the Investigating Officer is illegal and is liable to be quashed and the cognizance taken by the learned Magistrate on the basis of the charge-sheet submitted by the Investigating Officer is also illegal, according to the provisions of Section 195 Cr.P.C., and the preliminary enquiry ought to have been made by the court concerned for the purposes of making the complaint against the applicant. In such circumstances, the charge-sheet dated 20.1.2005, submitted by the Investigating Officer and on the basis of the charge-sheet submitted by the Investigating Officer the cognizance taken by the learned Magistrate may be quashed and the applicant may be released from the jail Forthwith.
5. Learned A.G.A. opposed the contentions made by the learned counsel for the applicant by submitting that on the basis of the evidence collected by the Investigating Officer, the charge-sheet has been submitted against the applicant and the evidence collected by Investigating Officer, on which the charge-sheet has been Submitted, has not been filed by the applicant to show that on the basis of the evidence collected by the Investigating Officer, the offence under Sections 419, 420, 467, 466 and 471 I.P.C. is made out or not, in such circumstances the charge-sheet my not be quashed. It is further contended that the applicant will not get the benefit of Section 195 Cr.P.C because no forgery was committed inside the court. The forged document was prepared outside the court and the plea taken by the applicant that his counsel Sri Manoj Kumar Srivastava had given the alleged forged order to him, may not be considered at this stage because it will be seen at the time of the trial.
6. From the perusal of the record and contentions made by the counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A., it appears that the petitioner had not filed the evidence collected by the Investigating Officer on the basis of which charge-sheet had been submitted. So without perusing the evidence it cannot be determined that the applicant had not committed the offence punishable under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468 and 471 I.P.C. According to the prosecution version itself, on the basis of the forged order of the court, the bus was released in favour of the applicant and the forgery was not committed inside the court. The alleged forged order was prepared outside the court and that order was produced by the applicant at the police station concerned for purposes of release of his bus. In pursuance of that order, the bus was released in favour of the applicant so the applicant alone is beneficiary of the alleged forgery. In such circumstances, the provisions of Section Cr.P.C, and 340 Cr.P.C. shall not be applicable. So the F.I.R. lodged by opposite party No. 8 Shri Gorokh Nath 195 Yadav, Station Officer of Police Station Anpara, District Sonbhadra is a legal F.I.R. end there is no illegality in its investigation and the charge-sheet submitted by the Investigating Officer and there is no illegality in taking cognizance on the basis of the charge-sheet submitted by the Investigating Officer and the plea taken by the applicant that if there was any forgery it was committed by the counsel Sri Manoj Kumar Srivastava, Advocate, It is a plea of the defence which can be taken at the stage of the trial. In such circumstances the charge-sheet dated 20.1.2005 and the order taking the cognizance cannot be quashed and no order in exercise of the powers conferred under Section 482 Cr.P.C., can be passed to release the applicant on bail. The proper remedy is available to the applicant by way of filing the bail application in the court concerned under Sections 437 and 439 Cr.P.C.
7. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case and the reasons as referred above, the prayer to quash the charge-sheet dated 20.1.2005 arising out of Crime No. 353 of 2004, under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468 and 471 I.P.C. Police Station Anpara, District Sonbhadra, in Criminal Case No. 187 of 2005, pending in the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sonbhadra, is refused.
8. Accordingly, this application is dismissed.