RAJENDRA SINGH CHAWLAversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER

         HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

            APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 18223 of 2020

Rajendra Singh Chawla
                                                        .....Applicant(s)
                                Versus
State of U.P. and Another
                                                           .....Opposite
                                                                 Party(s)

Counsel for Applicant(s)     : Anil Kumar Srivastava (Senior Adv.),
                               Sunil    Kumar    Singh,    Utkarsh
                               Srivastava
Counsel for Opposite Party(s): G.A.

Court No. - 82
              HON'BLE PADAM NARAIN MISHRA, J.

1. Heard Sri Anil Kumar Srivastava, learned Senior Counsel, assisted
by Sri Ankush Sharma, holding brief of Sri Utkarsh Srivastava,
learned counsel for the applicants and learned AGA for the State.

2. The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed
by the applicant seeking quashing of the entire proceedings of
Criminal Case No. 3027 of 2019 (State v. Rajendra Chawla), arising
out of Case Crime No. 76 of 2019, under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468
and 471 of IPC, Police Station Nawabad, District Jhansi.

3. The brief fact of the case is that the applicant was having a Retail
Outlet of Diesel in the name of M/s. Singh Career at Karari, Jhansi
and for the renewal of its license, the applicant completed all the
required formalities and thereafter on 19.12.2017 a letter was issued
by the Chief Divisional Retail Manager, Indian oil Corporation,
Divisional Officer, Kanpur for renewal of the license and pursuant to
that on 20.02.2018 the license of the M/s. Singh Career Retail Outlet
Karari Jhansi of diesel was duly sanctioned by the District Supplier
Officer being a competent authority for the aforesaid purpose and
thereafter on 23.02.2018 certain reports under the signature of all the
authorities including concern Clerk, Supply Inspector and Area
Rationing Officer, Jhansi. In short, allegation against the applicant is
that on 20.10.2018, another order for renewal of license of the M/s.
Singh Career Retail Outlet Karari, Jhansi was prepared under the
                                                    A482 No. 18223 of 2020
                             2


signature of concern clerk, Area Rationing Officer, District Jhansi
namely Manoj Kumar, District Supply Officer Jhansi namely Anoop
Tiwari and the District Magistrate, Jhansi namely Shiv Sahai Awasthi
and the signature of District Magistrate made thereon is forged and
has not been made by the District Magistrate, Jhansi.

4. The learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant
is falsely implicated in the present case. He further submitted that the
present criminal proceedings has been initiated at the instance of the
letter date 30.01.2019 sent by Shri Gurjeet Singh Chawla (Brother of
the applicant) who is having enemical terms with the applicant. He
further submitted that admittedly neither the applicant was custodian
of record nor he has any concern in making any forge signature of the
District Magistrate as his license of diesel was duly sanctioned and
issued the license of Retail of Diesel by the District Supply Officer
himself who was the competent enough to issue the license of Retail
Outlet of Diesel. He further submitted that during the investigation,
not even a single credible evidence was collected by the Investigating
Officer and without conducting fair and proper investigation in the
matter, a charge sheet was filed by the Investigating Officer only
against the applicant Under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 I.P.C.
on 04.09.2019 and the investigation against the custodian of the
record who are accused in the matter namely Anoop Tiwari (District
Supply Officer), Manoj Kumar (Area Rationing Officer) and Amit
Srivastava (concerned Clerk) was remain pending. On 20.02.2018,
an order for issuing license of diesel under the U.P. High Speed
Diesel Oil or Light Diesel Oil (Maintenance of Supply and Distribution)
Order 1981 was already passed by the District Supply Officer, Jhansi
on the recommendation of Area Rationing Officer, Jhansi and
concerned clerk, there was no occasion for the applicant to prepare
another document for grant of license of diesel. He further submitted
that alleged co-accused persons are enjoying their government job as
they have reinstated in service even during the pendency of the
investigation and the Investigating Agency could not obtain prior
permission to persecute them from the concerned department. He
lastly submitted that false implication of the applicant only at the
instance of his brother Gurjeet Singh Chawala cannot be ruled out
and in the circumstances of the present case, continuation of the
                                                       A482 No. 18223 of 2020
                               3


present criminal proceedings would amount to abuse of the process
of the law and the same is liable to be quashed.

5. Learned AGA for the state opposed the submissions advanced by
the leaned counsel for the applicant. He further submitted that the
Investigating Officer has submitted charge-sheet after duly
investigating the matter. He further submitted that prima facie
complicity of the applicant cannot be ruled out in the present case.
The complicity of the applicant can be adjudged at this stage.

6. At this juncture, it is inevitable to discuss the legal position
pertaining to the matter in hand. Forgery is sine-qua-non of offences
under sections 467, 468 and 471 IPC. Preparation of false document
or false electronic record or part thereof is condition precedent for
offence of forgery. Making of false document is defined under section
464 IPC. The said section 464 demonstrates that a person is said to
have made false document if; (a) he executed a document claiming to
be someone else or authorized by someone else; or (b) he altered
and tempered a document; or (c) he obtained a document by
practicing deception or from a person not in control of his faculties.

7. The basic ingredients of forgery are (1) the making of a false
document or part of it and (2) such making should be with such
intention as is specified in the section, viz, (a) to cause damage or
infringe to (i) the public, or (ii) any person; or (b) to support any claim
or title; or (c) to cause any person to part with property, or (d) to
cause any person to enter into an express or implied contract; or l(e)
to commit fraud or that fraud may be committed

8. The condition precedent for an offence under Sections 467 and
471 is forgery. The condition precedent for forgery is making a false
document (or false electronic record or part thereof). This case does
not relate to any false electronic record. In the present case, no
evidence has been taken on record as to show that the applicant has
forged the alleged certificate. The applicant is neither the authority to
issue certificate nor he is the custodian of the records, so in the
circumstances of the present case, prima facie, complicity of the
applicant in affixing forged signature cannot be proved.

9. Considering the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for
                                                                                        A482 No. 18223 of 2020
                                                                 4


                                    the parties and perusing the material available on record, the present
                                    matter pertains to the affixing forged signature of the District
                                    Magistrate on the renewal certificate. On the perusal of the records, it
                                    is evident from the page no. 31 of the Paper-book that Since the
                                    renewal license was properly approved and renewed the retail diesel
                                    license by the District Supply Officer, who was qualified to renew the
                                    retail outlet diesel license and the applicant was neither a custodian
                                    of records nor he has any concern in making any forge signature of
                                    the District Magistrate. On the perusal of the paper-book, it is evident
                                    that nothing is on record to show the complicity of the present
                                    applicant in forging the signature of the District Magistrate.

                                    10. Considering the circumstances of the present case and the
                                    dictum of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Bhajan Lal vs State of Haryana
                                    , the case in hand is the perfect example of the malicious prosecution
                                    which is initiated with the ulterior motive to unnecessarily harass the
                                    applicant. The present case is the fit case for the exercise of inherent
                                    power vested in this court under section 482 of Cr.P.C. to avoid
                                    abuse of process of law.

                                    11. Accordingly, present application is hereby is allowed.

                                    12. The entire proceedings of Criminal Case No. 3027 of 2019 (State
                                    v. Rajendra Chawla), arising out of Case Crime No. 76 of 2019, under
                                    Sections 419, 420, 467, 468 and 471 of IPC, Police Station Nawabad,
                                    District Jhansi is hereby quashed.


                                    February 20, 2026
                                    Akram
                                                                                (Padam Narain Mishra,J.)




Digitally signed by :-
MOHAMMAD AKRAM
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad