MAHAVIR SINGH CHAUDHARI Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) WE have heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned A.G.A. for the State and gone through the materials available on record. Petitioner Mahavir Singh Chaudhary has approached this Court by invoking the extra ordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India with a prayer to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari for quashing the impugned First Information Report dated 28.3.2009 lodged at the Police Station Hapur Dehat, District Ghaziabad registered as Crime No. 115 of 2009 under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 I.P.C. Another prayer is also made for issuing writ of mandamus commanding the respondents not to harass and arrest the petitioner pursuant to above mentioned First Information Report. The ancillary prayer is to pass any other suitable writ, order or direction which this Court may deem fit and proper on the facts and circumstances of the case. The brief facts relating to the case are that on 28.3.2009 an information was received through mukhbir that 8-10 persons are preparing forged documents for bail. After receiving the information a raid was conducted on 28.3.2009 at 15-45 p.m. and 9 accused persons were arrested on the spot and from their possession some fake documents and some rubber stamps of several authorities were also recovered. At the time of arrest they were all in possession of illegal arms. It is further stated in the F.I.R. that at the time of arrest all the accused persons confessed to their guilt and pointed out that they got prepared the records forged documents from a shop namely "Chaudhary Printers" situated at Eastern Kutchary Road. On the confession made by the co-accused persons, the Police party make a raid at the shop of the petitioner and took some computers in which the proformas of the forged document was found. WE have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned AGA appearing on behalf of the state and have perused the impugned First Information Report. It is contended by learned counsel fort the petitioner that there were no allegations against the petitioner in the F.I.R. that he had ever used any forged documents as genuine or ever furnished any bail paper of any person before any court. Hence, no offence is made out against the petitioner. It is further contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that no allegation has been made in the impugned F.I.R. that the petitioner deceived any person fraudulently or dishonestly after forging or fabricating any document or used the said forged document as genuine before any court or authority for taking any advantage. It is further contended that at the time of the alleged raid, no forged document or rubber stamps belonging it to any authority were recovered from the shop of the petitioner. Therefore, it cannot be said that the petitioner or his firm had indulged in forging any valuable security or document for using the same as genuine, therefore, no offence under Sections 467,468 and 471 I.P.C. is made out against the petitioner. In reply to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned A.G.A. pointed out that at this stage, defence of the petitioner cannot be taken into consideration nor can it be scanned meticulously only to fish out a defence for the petitioner. It is further submitted by the learned A.G.A. that as the F.I.R. discloses commission of a cognizable offence, which requires investigation and, therefore, the writ petition is devoid of merit and deserves to be dismissed. In this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for quashing the impugned F.I.R. which has been registered against him as case Crime No. 115 of 2009, under Sections 420,467,468 and 471 I.P.C. ,P.S. Hapur Dehat, District Ghaziabad. The case of the informant is that the petitioner is running a shop in the name of "Chaudhary Printers" situated at Eastern Kutchery Road near Meghdoot Cinema, District Meerut and all the accused persons have confessed at the time of their arrest that, these forged bail documents were being prepared at the shop of Chaudhari Printers. The petitioner is the owner of the shop of Chaudhari Printers and so many forged bail document has been recovered from the possession of the co-accused persons. Prima facie this allegation of the prosecution as is levelled by respondent No. 3 has to be taken to be correct. Under Article 226 of the Constitution of India it can not be said that the said allegation is false and a malicious FIR has been registered as up till now only the F.I.R. has been registered and investigation is yet to commences. At this stage we have to accept the allegations levelled in the F.I.R. to be correct per se without any addition or substraction and cogitating from the said angle it can not be said that no offence of any kind is disclosed from the bare reading of the F.I.R. It has been held by the Apex Court in the case of State of Haryana and others V. Bhajan Lal and others, reported in 1991 (28) ACC 111 (SC) that if the F.I.R. discloses the commission of a cognizable offence then it can not be quashed and the investigation can not be nullified unless the allegations are vexatious and malafide. Legitimate investigation can not be quashed by looking into the defence of the accused at the very threshold of the registration of FIR when cognizable offence requiring investigation is prima facie disclosed by the said FIR. 'When cognizable offence is disclosed by the FIR then the defence of Mala fide and vexatious prosecution relegates into the background as these are the matters which are circumscribed within the purview of investigation to be conducted by the I.O. and in such a situation neither the F.I.R. can be quashed nor the investigation can be scuttled. It has been held by the Apex Court in the said judgment as follows :- "41. WE shall now examine as to what are the requirements to be satisfied by an Officer-in-charge of a police station before he enters into the realm of investigation of a cognizable offence after the stage of registration of the offence under section 154(1). WE have already found that the police have under section 154(1) of the Code a statutory duty to register a cognizable offence and thereafter rider section 156(1) a statutory right to investigate any cognizable case without requiring sanction of a Magistrate." The same view has been reiterated by the Apex Court in the case of Union of India V. W.N. Chadha reported in 1993 SCC (Crl.) 1171. In this respect we reiterate and reproduce the law laid down by the Privy Counsil in the case of Emperor V. Khwaja Nazir Ahmad reported in AIR 1945 P.C. 17. It has been held in the aforesaid judgment as follows :- "Just as it is essential that every one accused of a crime should have free access to a Court of justice so that he may be duly acquitted if found not guilty of the offence with which he is charged, so it is of the utmost importance that the judiciary should not interfere with the police in matters which are within their province and into which the law imposes upon them the duty of enquiry. In India as has been shown there is a statutory right on the part of the police to investigate the circumstances of an alleged cognizable crime without requiring any authority from the judicial authorities, and it would, as their Lordship think, be an unfortunate result if it should be held possible to interfere with those statutory rights by an exercise of the inherent jurisdiction of the Court. The functions of the judiciary and the police are complimentary not over lapping and the combination of Individual liberty with a due observance of law and order is only to be obtained by leaving each to exercise its own function, always, of course, subject to the right of the Court to intervene in an appropriate case when moved under section 491, Criminal P.C., to give directions in the nature of habeas corpus. In such a case as the present, however, the Court's functions begin when a charge is preferred before it and now until then. Above view of the Privy Counsel has been confirmed by the Apex Court in the case of Bhajan Lal (supra) and also in Union of India V. W.N. Chaddha (supra). At this stage we have to take the allegations levelled by the informant to be correct. From the above discussion, the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner relates to disputed question of facts. It is for the investigating officer to look into the said defence of the petitioner and investigate the same. This court in exercise of its power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot enter into such an exercise which is out side its purview. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned A.G.A. for the State and perusal of the F.I.R. and gravity of the offence, it cannot be said that prima-facie no cognizable offence is disclosed, hence, we cannot kill the right of investigation by looking into the defence. WE are of the opinion that the F.I.R. of Crime No. 115 of 2009 under Sections 420,467,468 and 471 I.P.C., P.S. Hapur Dehat, District Ghaziabad cannot be quashed by invoking the extra ordinary powers under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India by issuing a writ or direction in the nature of certiorari. This writ petition is devoid of merits and is hereby dismissed. However, on the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.