- (1.) Instant misc. petition has been filed by the petitioner for quashing of FIR No. 172/2016 registered at Police Station Rawatbhatta, District Chittorgarh for offence under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 477, 120B I.P.C.
(2.) Brief facts of the case are that the complainant L.K. Arya filed a complaint before the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rawat Bhatta, District Chittorgarh to the effect that son of Shailesh Mohan was born on 4.6.2006 at Kota and entry to this effect was recorded in the service record of the petitioner and hospital record, however, the petitioner with mala fide intention on the basis of forged and fabricated documents got the birth certificate of his son issued from the Municipal Council, Rawatbhatta with date of birth as 4.6.2007 and obtained undue benefits. Similar allegations were levelled against some other persons also. It was stated in the application that a complaint in this regard was made to the authorities of N.P.C.I.L/Department of Atomic Energy, Rawatbhatta. The complaint was forwarded to the Police Station, Rawatbhatta under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. upon which FIR No. 172/2016 was registered against the petitioner for offence under Section 420, 467, 468, 471, 477, 120-B I.P.C. Counsel for the petitioner submits in the first instance that the complainant has no locus whatsoever to file the present FIR. Further the FIR does not disclose commission of cognizable offence by the petitioner as the petitioners son Manan was in fact born on 4.6.2006 but on a wrong advice, he filed an application at Rawatbhatta for obtaining birth certificate in which date of birth was wrongly mentioned as 4.6.2007. When the petitioner came to know about this fact, he filed an application before the Municipal Council Rawatbhatta for correction in the date of birth of his son upon which a fresh certificate was issued with corrected date as 4.6.2006. Thus, the complainant only with a view to harass and pressurize the petitioner, filed the present FIR. Therefore, it is prayed that the FIR No. 172/2016 may be quashed. He placed reliance on the decision rendered in the case of Prisoners Right Forum represented by its Director P. Pugalenthi Vs. State of Tamil Nadu reported in 2019 SCC Online Mad 2476.
(3.) Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor submits that from the case diary as well as statements and documents collected during investigation, it is prima facie clear that the petitioner did commit forgery and all the offences are prima facie made out against the petitioner. The complainant respondent No. 2 present in person submits that the petitioner in order to receive undue benefits filed an application alongwith affidavit before the Municipal Council Rawatbhatta stating the date of birth of his son as 4.6.2007. This certificate was used by the petitioner for different purposes including the admission of his son in the school. Therefore, in these circumstances, the FIR is not liable to be quashed.;