Imlakh Khan vs State Of Uttarakhand And Others
2023 Latest Caselaw 296 UK

     HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL

            Criminal Writ Petition No. 129 of 2023

Imlakh Khan                                               ..........Petitioner

                                       Vs.

State of Uttarakhand and others                        ........ Respondents


Present :    Mr. Shashi Kant Shandilya, 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 challenge in this petition is made to the

FIR No.19 of 2023, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471,

120-B IPC, Police Station Nehru Colony, Dehradun,

District Dehradun.

2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and

perused the record.

3. According to the FIR, a secret information was

received that various persons are practicing as Medical

Officers based on forged documents. Two persons were

detected by the Police, they were Preetam Singh and

Manish Ali, the co-accused. When they were questioned,

it were they, who told it to the Police and Medical

Department's Officers that the applicant and one more

Imran did provide them the fake medical documents for

money. It is the case that the applicant and the co-

accused had taken `6,00,000/- to `8,00,000/- from the

persons, who provided the fake medical certificates.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would

submit that no offence under Section 467 IPC is made out

from the perusal of the FIR. He would submit that the

Court should make indulgence to that extent.

5. In support of his contention, he relied on the

principle of law as laid down in the case of Shriniwas

Pandit Dharamadhikari vs. State of Maharrashtra,

(1980)4 SCC 551.

6. It is a writ petition under Article 226 of the

Constitution of India. In case, cognizance offence is made

out, generally no interference is warranted. In some

cases, FIR may not be recorded under the appropriate

Sections, but then, it is not all end of the matter, it is the

Investigating Officer, who is required to unearth the truth

and find out, as to whether any offence has been

committed and, if so, under what Section(s)?

7. The principles of law, as laid down in the

case of Shriniwas (supra), by the Hon'ble Supreme

Court are in an appeal against conviction. At that stage,

definitely the Court would require to find out, as to which

offences have been proved by the prosecution. Instant is

not such a case, it is the ignition point of judicial process.

8. The FIR categorically reveals that two persons

Preetam Singh and Manish Ali, both told it to the law

enforcement agency that it is the applicant and the co-

accused, who provided the fake medical degree

certificates for money. It is a really very serious offence.

Undoubtedly, the Investigating Officer, while investigating

would collect the material to ascertain, as to which of the

offence, if any, has been committed by the petitioner.

Therefore, this Court is of the view that at this stage,

there is no reason to make any interference in this

petition. Accordingly, the petition deserves to be

dismissed.

9. The petition is dismissed in limine.

(Ravindra Maithani, J.) Vacation Judge 17.01.2023 Sanjay