HARI SHANKAR PRASAD,J. - (1.) HEARD Mr. V.P. Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Anil Kumar Sinha, learned Advocate General for the respondent Nos. 1 and 2, Mr. Jitendra Nath, learned counsel for the respondent No. 3 and Mr. P.K. Prasad, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Advocate's Association.
(2.) THIS writ application under Article 226 of Constitution of India has been filed for quashing the FIR registered on the statement of respondent No. 3 as informant under Sections 466, 468, 471, 120B, IPC being Hazaribagh Sadar P.S. Case No. 485/2003, G.R. No. 2517/2003 against the petitioner on the ground that no case is made out under any of the sections so far as this petitioner is concerned. Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner gave details of development leading to lodging of the FIR and also the subsequent action on the basis of FIR lending to arrest of the petitioner and subsequent release of the petitioner. It was further pointed out that government conducted an enquiry on its level and its superior officer also made enquiry and even a team consisting of three officers also enquired into the matter but in every enquiry no material of involvement of this petitioner was found nor of his connivance or conspiracy with other two named persons was found in forging the documents and using the same knowing the documents to be forged ones. In this connection learned counsel referred to several annexures filed on behalf of the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 and tried to show from their annexures that no complicity was found but all of a sudden, while lodging FIR, the informant, who was also a member of the three man enquiry committee, in course of enquiry, did not find any material against this petitioner but amazingly made this petitioner as named accused alleging therein that lawyer of the co -accused Badri Singh, namely, Mr. P.P.N. Roy, without verifying from the original, filed a writ petition annexing photo copies of the so called forge documents and got a favourable order from the learned Court below and his complicity is also there. It is stated that this allegation in the FIR is based without any foundation, as in none of the enquiry reports the name of this petitioner has transpired or has come that he has participated in the commission of offence, rather it is clear from the FIR itself that documents were forged in the Central Jail, Hazaribagh by Badri Singh in connivance with some other prisoners lodged in the Central Jail and those papers were passed on to his son Anant Kumar Singh, who maneuvered arid swore an affidavit that all papers are genuine and when he swore affidavit that all papers are genuine then concerned lawyer of the writ petitioner had nothing to verify the genuineness of the documents because affidavit was sworn by the son of accused Badri Singh and, therefore, his complicity is not at all there and, therefore, this FIR is fit to be quashed. In this connection, learned counsel placed reliance upon a number of rulings to show that FIR can be quashed at this stage. He referred to AIR 1992 SC 604; State of Haryana and Ors. v. Choudhary Bhajan Lal and Ors., in which the Apex Court has given certain guidelines in the facts and circumstances of which cognizance or FIR can be quashed and learned counsel referred to guideline Nos. 1, 5 and 7 fit into the case, which are quoted hereinbelow : '(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 entirely do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused. (5) Where the allegations made in the FIR 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. (7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide 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.'
(3.) RELIANCE was also placed upon 2004 Cr LJ 3626, in which cognizance was quashed on the ground that case was filed with ulterior motive. Reliance was also placed upon 2003 (2) East Cr Cases 255 (SC), wherein it was held that when FIR lodged does not disclose commission of cognizable offence then the case is not within the purview to investigate the same. The learned counsel drew my attention to para 19 of the foresaid case law, which is quoted hereinbelow : '19. The High Court has held that the petitions filed by the appellants for quashing the complaint and the FIRs registered against them are premature. The question which arises is that where the complaint or the FIR does not disclose commission of a cognizable offence, whether the same can be quashed at the initial stage? This question was examined by this Court in State of West Bengal and Ors. v. Swapan Kumar Guha and Ors., AIR 1982 SC 949, and it was held that the first information report which does not allege or disclose that the essential requirements of the penal provision are prima facie satisfied, cannot form the foundation or constitute the starting point of a lawful investigation. It is surely not within the province of the police to investigate into Report (FIR) which does not disclose the commission of a cognizable offence arid the Code does not impose upon them the duty of enquiry in such cases. It was further held that an '(1) Where the allegations made in the First Information Report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value an 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 FIR 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 FIR 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.' ;