REENA RANI Vs. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of present application, moved under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., applicant seeks to quash the order dated 4.6.2019 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, Laksar in Misc. Case No.120 of 2019, as well as the order dated 20.11.2019 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Laksar, Haridwar in Crl. Revision No.401 of 2019.

(2.) Factual matrix of the case is that applicantSmt. Reena Rani filed an application u/s 156(3) of the Cr.P.C. against the respondent no.2 before the Magistrate concerned, who after hearing the applicant, dismissed the application vide his order dated 4.6.2019. Aggrieved by it, the applicant preferred criminal revision no.401 of 2019 Smt. Reena v. State and others. Learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Laksar, after hearing the parties, dismissed the revision on 20.11.2019 and affirmed the order dated 4.6.2019 passed by the J.M. Laksar. Aggrieved thereby, the present petition is filed u/s 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing the above orders.

(3.) It is argued by learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is the permanent resident of State of Uttarakhand; she applied for grant of a permanent resident certificate; all the necessary documents were filled up and produced before the respondent- Vijay Pal Rastogi who was posted as a clerk in Tehsil Roorkee; that the applicant filled up all the documents through Sukendra @ Sonu who was the typist in Tehsil compound; after submitting all the documents before the respondent Vijay Pal Rastogi, he issued the permanent resident certificate in favour of applicant as well as her husband; both the documents dated 22.5.2014 are on record; after submitting the certificate issued in favour of the applicant, she submitted the same before the Education Department but the said Department found the same to be forged; the applicant had no knowledge about it; she submitted the same believing that the same was a genuine document; the learned Trial Court as well as the Revisional Court did not notice this fact and simply dismissed the application u/s 156(3) Cr.P.C.; and there exists ample evidence against the respondent to proceed with the matter.