JUDGMENT Saroj Bala, J.
1. This application under Section 482 Cr.P.c. has been filed for quashing the chargesheet No. 129 of 2004 State v. Om Prakash Singh and Anr. in case crime No. 445 of 2004 under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 I.P.C. P.S. Kaptanganj District Kushinangar.
2. The factual background in a nutshell is as follows:
3. The respondent No. 2 lodged the First Information Report on 10.10.2004 alleging that Tej Bahadur Singh, applicant No. 1 in his capacity as manager of Sri Jagdamba Laghu Madhyamik Vidyalaya Mundera, Somali, Kaptanganj, Kushinagar wrote a letter dated 5.11.1987 to District Basic Education Officer Deoria for the regularisation of complainant and other employees including the principal and assistant teachers of the said institution. On being satisfied with inquiry report of Deputy Inspectors of Schools, the District Basic Education Officer Deoria regularising the services of the complainant and other employees sent an information about it to the applicant No. 1 vide letter No. 442 dated 28.4.1988. Assistant teachers namely Janardan Mishra, Jai Singh and Vidya Prasad, having joined other service in the year 1997 selection of Lal Bahadur Upadhyay, Krishna Murari Mishra and Ravindra Gupta was made and letter was sent to the District Basic Education Officer Deoria for approval. The District Basic Education Officer Deoria vide letter No. 3908 dated 31.3.1997 communicated the approval of selection to applicant No. 1. The applicant No. 1 and applicant No. 2 father and son in collusion with each other collected money from unemployed youth for giving employment and manufactured false and fabricated letters No. 442 dated 28.4.1988 and No. 3908 dated 31.3.1997 forging the signature and seal of the then District Basic Education Officer. According to the informant in the year 2002 the applicants in connivance with Roop Chand, assistant teacher collected money by duping the unemployed youth and manufactured a false M.R. dropping the names of approved teachers and showing names of other teachers and employees and sent it to District Basic Education Officer Deoria. The applicants in collusion with each other sent a false and fabricated list of teachers and employees to the District Basic Education Officer Deoria for grant of aid.
4. After investigation charge sheet No. 129 of 2004 was submitted against the applicants on 15.12.2004. After taking cognizance summons were issued to the applicants.
5. Heard Shri Kamlesh Shukla, learned Counsel for the applicant, Shri H.P. Gupta, learned Counsel for the respondent No. 2, Shir Sudhir Mehrothra, learned A.G.A. and have perused the material on record.
6. The contention of the applicants is that respondent No. 2 and Vishwanath Tripathi and Ors. instituted a compliant on 15.4.1999 against the applicant No. 1 before the District Consumer Protection Forum, Kushinagar, Padrauna for payment of remaining salary. According to the applicants the said compliant was dismissed by an order dated 6.7.1999 with the observation that the matter can be resolved by the competent Civil Court. The applicants have stated that thereafter civil suit No. 1365 of 1999 Vishwanath v. Tej Bahadur was instituted in the court of Civil Judge (Junior Division) who passed an order dated 7.8.1999 directing the parties to maintain status quo. The said civil suit was withdrawn after the rejection of temporary injunction application. Thereafter respondent No. 3 and Vishwanath and others filed Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 30944 of 2004 Vishwanath Tripathi and five Ors. v. State of U.P. and four Ors. The said writ petition was finally disposed of with the direction to the petitioners to file a comprehensive representation which was to be considered by the District Basic Education Officer Kushinagar, in accordance with law after giving an opportunity of hearing to the parties. The applicants contended that respondent No. 2 and others having failed to get any interim relief lodged the present First Information Report with false and frivolous allegations.
7. The learned Counsel for the applicants submitted that the Investigating Officer interrogated the respondent No. 2 and recorded his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.c. and thereafter relying on the affidavits of Shri Babban Singh and others concluded the investigation and submitted charge sheet. The learned Counsel argued that facts stated in the First Information Report do not make out commission of offences under Section 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 I.P.C. The learned Counsel contended that the First Information Report appears to be an off shoot of a bitter dispute and litigation between the parties. The submission of the learned Counsel was that it is vindictive prosecution and is instituted with an oblique motive. The learned Counsel convassed that it is a dispute of civil nature and the material collected by the Investigating Agency does not establish mens rea. The learned Counsel urged that the forgeries are said to be committed during the year 1988 to 1997 but the First Information Report was lodged in the year 2004. The learned Counsel in support of his arguments relied on the decisions in Zandu Pharmaceutical Works, Ltd. and Ors. v. M.D. Sharaful Haque and Ors. 2005(1) UPCrR, 135, Ram Biraji Devi and Anr. v. Umesh Kumar Singh and Anr. (2006) 3 SCC (Cri), 176, Suresh v. Mahadevappa Shivappa Danannava and Anr., 2005 (1) CAR (SC) 277, Ashok Chaturvedi and Ors. v. Shitul H. Chanchani and Anr. 1998, UPCrR, 669, Nagarathinam and Ors. v. State Represented by Inspector of Police (2006) 3 S.C.C. (Cri) 212 and Smt. Lata mehrotra v. State of U.P. and Anr. 2004 (50) ACC, 847.
8. The learned A.G.A. and learned Counsel for the respondent No. 2 submitted that the applicants committed forgery by manufacturing false and fabricated orders of District Basic Education Officer Kushinagar and charge sheet was submitted by the Investigating Officer after collecting credible evidence. The learned Counsel argued that on the complaint of principal inquiry was conducted by Assistant Basic Education Officer, Kaptanganj and detailed inquiry report was submitted on 5.8.2005 exposing the forgeries committed by the applicants. The submission of the learned Counsel was that the applicants committed fraud by manufacturing false documents with forged signature of the then District Basic Education Officer Kushinagar. The learned Counsel urged that the facts stated in the First Information Report make out offences under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 I.P.C. The learned Counsel contended that charge sheet can not be quashed merely because a civil remedy is available or has been availed and defences put forth shall be considered at the trial. According to the learned Counsel the only question relevant at this stage is whether the averments made in the First Information Report spell out the ingredients of offences or not. The learned Counsel in support of his arguments relied on the decisions in Shaheda Begum v. State of A.P. and Ors. 2002 (45) ACC 363, Indian Oil Corporation v. NEPC India Ltd. and Ors. 2006 (3) SCC (Cri) 188 and State of Orissa v. Debendra Nath Padhi .
9. The inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. can be exercised to quash the proceedings : (i) where it manifestly appears that there is a legal bar against the institution or continuance e.g. want of sanction; (ii) where the allegations in the First Information Report or complaint taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not constitute the offence alleged; (iii) where the allegations constitute an offence, but there is no legal evidence adduced or the evidence adduced clearly or manifestly fails to prove the charge. The scope of exercise of power under Section 482 of the Code and the categories of cases where this court may exercise its power under it relating to cognizable offences to prevent abuse of process of court or otherwise to: secure the ends of justice have been set out by the Apex Court in the case of State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 (Cri) 426 as hereinunder:
(1) Where the allegations made in the first information report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused.
(2) Where the allegations in the first information report and other materials, if any, accompanying the First Information Report do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code.
(3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the First Information Report or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused.
(4) Where the allegations in the First Information Report do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code.
(5) Where the allegations made in the First Information Report or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused.
(6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the Act concerned (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and /or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the Act concerned, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party.
(7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with malafides and/ or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge.
10. In State of M.P. v. Awadh Kishore Gupta (2004) 1 SCC, the Apex Court has held as follows:
The section does not confer any new powers on the High Court. It only saves the inherent power which the Court possessed before the enactment of the Code. It envisages three circumstances under which the inherent jurisdiction may be exercised, namely, (i) to give effect to an order under the Code, (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of court, and (iii) to otherwise secure the ends of justice. It is neither possible nor desirable to lay down any inflexible rule which would govern the exercise of inherent jurisdiction. No legislative enactment dealing with procedure can provide for all cases that may possibly arises. Courts, therefore, have inherent powers apart from express provisions of law which are necessary for proper discharge of functions and duties imposed upon them by law. That is the doctrine which finds expression in the section which merely recognizes and preserves inherent powers of the High Courts. All Courts, whether civil or criminal, possess, in the absence of any express provision, as inherent in their constitution, all such powers as are necessary to do the right and to undo a wrong in the course of administration of justice on the principle quando lex aliquid alicui concedit, concedere videtur id sine quo res ipse esse non potest (when the law gives a person anything it gives him that without which it cannot exist). While exercising powers under the section, the Court does not function as a court of appeal or revision. Inherent jurisdiction under the section though wide has to be exercised sparingly, carefully and with caution and only when such exercise is justified by the tests specifically laid down in section itself. It is to be exercised ex debito justitiae to do read and substantial justice for the administration of which alone courts exist. Authority of the court exists for advancement of justice and if any attempt is made to abuse that authority so as to produce injustice, the court has power to prevent such abuse. It would be an abuse of process of the court to allow any action which would result injustice and prevent promotion of justice. In exercise of the power, court would be justified to quash any proceeding if it finds that initiation/continuance of it amounts to abuse of the process of court or quashing of these proceedings would otherwise serve the ends of justice. When no offence is disclosed by the complaint, the court may examine the question of fact. When a complaint is sought to be quashed it is permissible to look into the materials to assess what the complainant has alleged and whether any offence is made out even if the allegations are accepted in to to.
11. In State of Karnataka v. M. Devendrappa , the Apex Court held that allegations of mala fides against the respondent are of no consequence and cannot by itself be the basis for quashing the proceedings. In Chand Dhawan v. Jawahar Lal , it was observed that when the material relied by a party is required to be proved, no inference can be drawn on the basis of those materials to conclude the complaint to be unacceptable. The court should not act on annexures to the writ petitions under Section 482 of the Code, which cannot be termed as evidence without being tested and proved.
12. In the case of Union of India v. Prakash P. Hinduja and Anr. ,it has been reiterated that Section 482 Cr.P.c. saves inherent powers of the High Court and such a power can be exercised to prevent abuse of process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice.
13. The facts culled out from the First Information Report are that the applicants manufactured false letter No. 442 dated 28.4.1988 and letter No. 3908 dated 31.3.1997 forging signature and seal of the then the District Basic Education Officer Deoria showing regularization and selection of persons other then those whose names figured in the original orders. As a matter of fact the services of complainant and other employees including the principle and assistant teacher of Sri Jagdamba Laghu Madhyamik Vidyalaya Mundera, Somali, Kaptanganj, Kushinagar were regularized and information was communicated to the applicant No. 1 vide letter No. 442 dated 28.4.1988. In the year 1997 the selection of Lal Bahadur Upadhyay, Krishna Murari Mishra and Ravindra Gupta, assistant teachers was made and approval of selection was communicated to the applicant No. 1 vide letter No. 3908 dated 31.3.1997. The applicants prepared a false regularization list of teachers and staff which was sent to the District Basic Education Officer Deoria for grant of aid. After investigation charge sheet for the offences under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 I.P.C. was submitted. The allegations made in the First Information Report taken at their face value prima facie constitute the offences under the above mentioned sections of Indian Penal Code against the applicants. The inquiry report of Deputy Basic Education Officer dated 25.2.2005 inculpates the applicants with the charges of forging documents referred to in the First Information Report. The allegations set out in the First Information Report constitute the offences for which cognizance has been taken by the Magistrate and sufficient material has been collected by the Investigating Officer in support of allegations made in the First Information Report.
14. Having taken into consideration the factual position of the case in the light of the principles of law enunciated by the Apex Court the application for quashing the charge sheet is devoid of substance and deserves rejection. Accordingly, the application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is rejected.