WPCRL/656/2022
2022 Latest Caselaw 1280 UK

                      Office Notes,
                   reports, orders or
SL.                 proceedings or
         Date                                         COURT'S OR JUDGES'S ORDERS
No                   directions and
                   Registrar's order
                    with Signatures
      22.04.2022                        WPCRL No. 656 of 2022
                                        Hon'ble Alok Kumar Verma, J.

This Criminal Writ Petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a writ of certiorari to quash the impugned First Information Report No. 0019 of 2022, registered with Police Station Rudraprayag, District Rudraprayag, for the offence under Sections 420, 467, 468 and 471 of I.P.C; a writ of mandamus commanding the respondent no. 2 not to arrest the petitioner in connection with the impugned First Information Report.

2. Heard Mr. Ramji Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. T.c. Agarwal, learned Deputy Advocate General for the State.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that forged mark- sheets are not valuable security, therefore, the present case would not fall under Section 467 of IPC. In support of the said submission, the learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in "Bhausaheb Kalu Patil vs. The State of Maharashtra", AIR 1981 SC 80, "Shriniwas Pandit Dharmadhikari vs. State of Maharashtra", (1980) 4 SCC 551 and judgment dated 27.07.2021 of the Hon'ble High Court of Judicature at Bombay in Writ Petition No. 2281 of 2021, "Dr. Swapna Patkar vs. State of Maharashtra and Others."

4. The learned counsel for the State requested four weeks' time to file counter affidavit.

5. Issue notice to the respondent no.3. Steps to be taken within a week.

6. At the request of learned counsel for both the parties, list this case on 23.05.2022. Till then, in the facts and circumstances of the case and after considering the submissions of learned counsel for the parties, it is directed that no coercive action shall be taken against the petitioner - Bharat Singh Chauhan, provided he will cooperate with the Investigating Agency in the investigation, he will be available for interrogation by the Investigating Agency and he will not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case.

7. It is clarified that no adjournment shall be granted on the demand of the petitioner on the date fixed.

8. It is also clarified that if the petitioner misuses or violates any of the conditions, imposed upon him, the Investigating Officer will be free to move the Court for vacation of stay order.

(Alok Kumar Verma, J.) 22.04.2022

Nahid