Uttarakhand High Court
Basmati Rav vs State Of Uttarakhand And Others on 5 July, 2023
Author: Ravindra Maithani
Bench: Ravindra Maithani
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT
NAINITAL
Criminal Writ Petition No.930 of 2023
Basmati Rav ....Petitioner
Versus
State of Uttarakhand and Others ....Respondents
Present:-
Mr. Karan Singh Dugtal, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Lalit Miglani, A.G.A. with Ms. Sonika Khulbe, Brief
Holder for the State.
JUDGMENT
Hon'ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral) The petitioner seeks quashing of FIR No.0161 of 2023, dated 29.05.2023, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC, Police Station Sitarganj, District Udham Singh Nagar, with related reliefs.
2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
3. According to the FIR, the petitioner had been working as Angan Bari Karyakarti, but she forged her date of birth in the documents. The documents were verified, and, subsequently, it was revealed that the date of birth was forged by the petitioner. The FIR has been lodged by the District Programme Officer, Udham Singh Nagar.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that no forgery was done by the petitioner; the documents are genuine.
2
5. It is a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In case, the FIR discloses commission of offence, generally, no interference is warranted unless there are compelling circumstances to do so.
6. The FIR in the instant case is not based mere on some statements. The petitioner was appointed as Angan Bari Karyakarti. Her documents were verified and the officers came to know that, in fact, the petitioner forged the documents. That is why the FIR has been lodged.
7. Now, it is being argued that the documents are genuine. This is a statement assailing the credibility and truthfulness of the FIR. As stated, the FIR is not based on any of the statements. It has been lodged after verification of the documents. The FIR categorically discloses commission of cognizable offences. What is its truthfulness or credibility, it would fall for scrutiny during investigation or trial, as the case may be. Therefore, this Court is of the view that there is no reason to make any interference. Accordingly, the petition deserves to be dismissed at the stage of admission itself.
10. The petition is dismissed in limine.
(Ravindra Maithani, J.) 05.07.2023 Ravi Bisht