1. By way of instant petition filed under Section 482 Cr.PC, prayer has been made by the petitioner for quashing of FIR No. 111, dated 12.7.2015, registered at PS Manali, District Kullu, H.P., under Sections 420, 468 and 471 of IPC, as well as consequent proceedings, if any, pending before the competent court of law.

2. Precisely, facts of the case, which may be relevant for the adjudication of the case at hand are that petitioner filed two applications dated 18.8.1999 and 4.4.2000 to the HPSEBL, praying therein for extension of load qua the connection No. GC-105 and for reduction of load with regard to connection No. GC-100 (Annexure P-2). Electricity Board while acceding to the prayer made in the aforesaid applications extended/reduced the load qua the aforesaid electricity meters. Petitioner had been using the aforesaid electricity connections in the premises from the date of their installment and there is no complaint, if any, with regard to payment of bills. On 11.7.2015, respondent No.2, who is mother of the petitioner, lodged a complaint to the SHO PS Manali (Annexure P-3), alleging therein that petitioner forged signatures of his father i.e. husband of the complainant-respondent No.2 as a witness on the applications dated 18.8.1999 and 4.4.2000. She alleged that her husband and father of the petitioner is missing since 1996 and his signatures have been forged by the petitioner on the aforesaid applications. On the basis of aforesaid complaint, FIR 111 of 2015 came to be lodged against the petitioner under Section 420 and 468 of IPC at PS Manali, District Kullu, H.P., however, police after having conducted investigation submitted the cancellation report on the ground that no offence is made out against the petitioner as the electricity board has disclosed that applications were only for increase/reduction of load and the name of the owner of meters has not been changed. It was also recorded in the cancellation report that there is no impact of signature of Shri Baldev Singh and even if some other person had put signature on behalf of Baldev as witness on the applications, there would have been no manipulation in the records. Most importantly, police observed in the cancellation report that there is a land dispute between the petitioner and respondent No.2 (Annexure P5). After receipt of the cancellation report, court below vide order dated 29.3.2017, summoned the complainant, wherein she filed objections to the cancellation report. Court having taken cognizance of the objections, ordered for reinvestigation of the case and fixed the same on 14.5.2018 for report of reinvestigation. Police after having re-investigated the case submitted the final report (Annexure P7), wherein investigating agency came to the conclusion that both the applications were submitted for extension/reduction of the load, not for changing the meters in his name. During investigation, police obtained specimen signatures of the petitioner and expert opinion was obtained from the handwriting expert, who opined that signatures of Baldev Singh have been put by the petitioner and as such, police incorporated Section 471 of IPC in the FIR. After completion of investigation, police presented challan in the competent court of law, which after having taken note of material contained in the final report submitted under Section 173 Cr.PC summoned the petitioner for 8.10.2021. In the aforesaid background, petitioner has approached this Court in the instant proceedings for quashing of FIR as well as consequent proceedings pending in the competent court of law on the ground that no case much less under Sections 420, 468 and 471 of IPC is made out against the petitioner. It has been further stated in the petition that FIR sought to be quashed in the instant proceedings discloses no offence, if any, against the petitioner.

3. Mr. Maan Singh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner while making this Court to peruse the complaint lodged by respondent No.2 (Annexure P-3) on the basis of which, FIR sought to be quashed came to be lodged, contended that at no point of time, complaint, if any, ever came to be lodged against the petitioner that he obtained electricity connection by forging the name of his father Baldev Singh, rather specific allegation against the petitioner from the day one was that he forged the signatures of witness on the applications submitted by him. While inviting attention of this court to the investigation conducted by the police at the first instance, Mr. Maan Singh, contended that police after having conducted investigation, submitted the cancellation report, stating therein that there is no evidence that petitioner forged the signature of his father Baldev Singh for getting the electricity meters sanctioned in the name of his father, rather he submitted two applications for extension and reduction of the load and allegedly, thereupon, he forged the signature of Baldev Singh as witness. Police also reported in the cancellation report that there is no manipulation in the records as far as installation of electricity meter in the name of the petitioner is concerned, rather same stands installed in the name of the petitioner. While making this Court to peruse the provisions contained under 420, 468 and 471 of IPC, Mr. Maan Singh, contended that there is no material that petitioner caused any wrongful loss, damage or injury to the complainant-respondent No. 2 by fraudulently and dishonestly forging the record and as such, no case, if any, is made out against the petitioner under Sections 420, 468 and 471 of IPC.

4. Mr. Narender Thakur, learned Additional Advocate General, while refuting the aforesaid submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, supported the impugned action of summoning the petitioner by the court below. He submitted that once it stands duly established that petitioner forged the signatures of his father Baldev Singh while submitting applications for extension/reduction of the load, he has been rightly booked under Sections 420, 468 and 471 of IPC. While fairly admitting the factum with regard to installation of the meters in the name of the petitioner, Mr. Guleria, submitted that since prayer made by the petitioner for reduction/extension of load by way of applications, which were duly attested by the witness, came to be accepted by the Electricity Board, it can be safely inferred that petitioner by forging the signatures of his father Baldev Singh as witness on those applications forms not only cheated the department, but dishonestly induced the department deceived to deliver/ accept the prayer made by him for extension /reduction of load. Lastly, learned Additional Advocate General submitted that there is overwhelming evidence collected on record to prove that case under Sections 420, 468 and 471 of IPC exists against the petitioner under the aforesaid provisions of law and as such, instant petition deserves to be dismissed outrightly.

5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the records of the case.

6. Before ascertaining the genuineness and correctness of the submissions and counter submissions having been made by the learned counsel for the parties vis-à-vis prayer made in the instant petition, this Court deems it necessary to discuss/elaborate the scope and competence of this Court to quash the criminal proceedings while exercising power under Section 482 of Cr.PC.

7. Hon’ble Apex Court in judgment titled State of Haryana and others vs. Bhajan Lal and others, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 has laid down several principles, which govern the exercise of jurisdiction of High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Before pronouncement of aforesaid judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court, a three-Judge Bench of Hon’ble Court in State of Karnataka vs. L. Muniswamy and others, 1977 (2) SCC 699, [LQ/SC/1977/113] held that the High Court is entitled to quash a proceeding, if it comes to the conclusion that allowing the proceeding to continue would be an abuse of the process of the Court or that the ends of justice require that the proceeding ought to be quashed. Relevant para is being reproduced herein below:-

“7....In the exercise of this wholesome power, the High Court is entitled to quash a proceeding if it comes to the conclusion that allowing the proceeding to continue would be an abuse of the process of the Court or that the ends of justice require that the proceeding ought to be quashed. The saving of the High Court’s inherent powers, both in civil and criminal matters, is designed to achieve a salutary public purpose which is that a court proceeding ought not to be permitted to degenerate into a weapon of harassment or persecution. In a criminal case, the veiled object behind a lame prosecution, the very nature of the material on which the structure of the prosecution rests and the like would justify the High Court in quashing the proceeding in the interest of justice. The ends of justice are higher than the ends of mere law though justice has got to be administered according to laws made by the legislature. The compelling necessity for making these observations is that without a proper realisation of the object and purpose of the provision which seeks to save the 58 inherent powers of the High Court to do justice, between the State and its subjects, it would be impossible to appreciate the width and contours of that salient jurisdiction.”

8. Subsequently, Hon’ble Apex Court in Bhajan Lal (supra), has elaborately considered the scope and ambit of Section 482 Cr.P.C. Subsequently, Hon’ble Apex Court in Vineet Kumar and Ors. v. State of U.P. and Anr., while considering the scope of interference under Sections 397 Cr.PC and 482 Cr.PC, by the High Courts, has held that High Court is entitled to quash a proceeding, if it comes to the conclusion that allowing the proceeding to continue would be an abuse of the process of the Court or that the ends of justice require that the proceedings ought to quashed. The Hon’ble Apex Court has further held that the saving of the High Court’s inherent powers, both in civil and criminal matters, is designed to achieve a salutary public purpose i.e. a court proceeding ought not to be permitted to degenerate into a weapon of harassment or persecution. In the aforesaid case, the Hon’ble Apex Court taking note of seven categories, where power can be exercised under Section 482 Cr.PC, as enumerated in Bhajan Lal (supra), i.e. where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with malafides 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, quashed the proceedings.

9. Hon’ble Apex Court in M/s Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 2021 SC 1918 [LQ/SC/2021/2114 ;] , has held as under:

“Conclusions: 23. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, our final conclusions on the principal/core issue, whether the High Court would be justified in passing an interim order of stay of investigation and/or “no coercive steps to be adopted”, during the pendency of the quashing petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C and/or under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and in what circumstances and whether the High Court would be justified in passing the order of not to arrest the accused or “no coercive steps to be adopted” during the investigation or till the final report/chargesheet is filed under Section 173 Cr.P.C., while dismissing/disposing of/not entertaining/not quashing the criminal proceedings/complaint/FIR in exercise of powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and/or under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, our final conclusions are as under:

i) Police has the statutory right and duty under the relevant provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure contained in Chapter XIV of the Code to investigate into a cognizable offence;

ii) Courts would not thwart any investigation into the cognizable offences;

iii) It is only in cases where no cognizable offence or offence of any kind is disclosed in the first information report that the Court will not permit an investigation to go on;

iv) The power of quashing should be exercised sparingly with circumspection, as it has been observed, in the ‘rarest of rare cases (not to be confused with the formation in the context of death penalty).

v) While examining an FIR/complaint, quashing of which is sought, the court cannot embark upon an enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the FIR/complaint;

vi) Criminal proceedings ought not to be scuttled at the initial stage;

vii) Quashing of a complaint/FIR should be an exception rather than an ordinary rule;

viii) Ordinarily, the courts are barred from usurping the jurisdiction of the police, since the two organs of the State operate in two specific spheres of activities and one ought not to tread over the other sphere;

ix) The functions of the judiciary and the police are complementary, not overlapping;

x) Save in exceptional cases where non-interference would result in miscarriage of justice, the Court and the judicial process should not interfere at the stage of investigation of offences;

xi) Extraordinary and inherent powers of the Court do not confer an arbitrary jurisdiction on the Court to act according to its whims or caprice;

xii) The first information report is not an encyclopaedia which must disclose all facts and details relating to the offence reported. Therefore, when the investigation by the police is in progress, the court should not go into the merits of the allegations in the FIR. Police must be permitted to complete the investigation. It would be premature to pronounce the conclusion based on hazy facts that the complaint/FIR does not deserve to be investigated or that it amounts to abuse of process of law. After investigation, if the investigating officer finds that there is no substance in the application made by the complainant, the investigating officer may file an appropriate report/summary before the learned Magistrate which may be considered by the learned Magistrate in accordance with the known procedure;

xiii) The power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is very wide, but conferment of wide power requires the court to be more cautious. It casts an onerous and more diligent duty on the court;

xiv) However, at the same time, the court, if it thinks fit, regard being had to the parameters of quashing and the self-restraint imposed by law, more particularly the parameters laid down by this Court in the cases of R.P. Kapur (supra) and Bhajan Lal (supra), has the jurisdiction to quash the FIR/complaint;

xv) When a prayer for quashing the FIR is made by the alleged accused and the court when it exercises the power under Section 482 Cr.P.C., only has to consider whether the allegations in the FIR disclose commission of a cognizable offence or not. The court is not required to consider on merits whether or not the merits of the allegations make out a cognizable offence and the court has to permit the investigating agency/police to investigate the allegations in the FIR;

xvi) The aforesaid parameters would be applicable and/or the aforesaid aspects are required to be considered by the High Court while passing an interim order in a quashing petition in exercise of powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and/or under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. However, an interim order of stay of investigation during the pendency of the quashing petition can be passed with circumspection. Such an interim order should not require to be passed routinely, casually and/or mechanically. Normally, when the investigation is in progress and the facts are hazy and the entire evidence/material is not before the High Court, the High Court should restrain itself from passing the interim order of not to arrest or “no coercive steps to be adopted” and the accused should be relegated to apply for anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. before the competent court. The High Court shall not and as such is not justified in passing the order of not to arrest and/or “no coercive steps” either during the investigation or till the investigation is completed and/or till the final report/chargesheet is filed under Section 173 Cr.P.C., while dismissing/disposing of the quashing petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and/or under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. xvii) Even in a case where the High Court is prima facie of the opinion that an exceptional case is made out for grant of interim stay of further investigation, after considering the broad parameters while exercising the powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and/or under Article 226 of the Constitution of India referred to hereinabove, the High Court has to give brief reasons why such an interim order is warranted and/or is required to be passed so that it can demonstrate the application of mind by the Court and the higher forum can consider what was weighed with the High Court while passing such an interim order.

xviii) Whenever an interim order is passed by the High Court of “no coercive steps to be adopted” within the aforesaid parameters, the High Court must clarify what does it mean by “no coercive steps to be adopted” as the term “no coercive steps to be adopted” can be said to be too vague and/or broad which can be misunderstood and/or misapplied.

24. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, the present appeal succeeds. The impugned interim order/direction contained in clause (d) of the impugned interim order dated 28.09.2020 by which the High Court has directed that “no coercive measures to be adopted” against the petitioners (respondent nos. 2 to 4 herein) in respect of FIR No. 367/2019 dated 19.09.2019, registered at Worli Police Station, Mumbai, Maharashtra (subsequently transferred to Economic Offence Wing, Unit IX, Mumbai, renumbered as C.R. No. 82/2019) is hereby quashed and set aside. However, it is made clear that we have not expressed anything on the merits of the case, more particularly the allegations in the FIR and the High Court to consider the quashing petition in accordance with law and on its own merits and considering the afore-stated observations made by this Court in the present judgment.

25. Having regard to the fact that despite the law laid down by this Court in the case of Habib Abdullah Jeelani (supra) and other decisions, referred to hereinabove, some High Courts have continued to pass such interim orders, we direct the Registry to forward a copy of this judgment to all the High Courts to be placed before Hon’ble the Chief Justice to circulate to all the Judges of the High Courts.”

10. Hon’ble Apex Court in Prashant Bharti v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2013) 9 SCC 293, [LQ/SC/2013/107] while drawing strength from its earlier judgment titled as Rajiv Thapar and Ors v. Madan Lal Kapoor, (2013) 3 SCC 330, [LQ/SC/2013/105] has reiterated that High Court has inherent power under Section 482 Cr.PC., to quash the initiation of the prosecution against an accused, at the stage of issuing process, or at the stage of committal, or even at the stage of framing of charge, but such power must always be used with caution, care and circumspection. While invoking its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., the High Court has to be fully satisfied that the material produced by the accused is such, that would lead to the conclusion, that his/their defence is based on sound, reasonable, and indubitable facts and the material adduced on record itself overrules the veracity of the allegations contained in the accusations levelled by the prosecution/complainant. The material relied upon by the accused should be such, as would persuade a reasonable person to dismiss and condemn the actual basis of the accusations as false. In such a situation, the judicial conscience of the High Court would persuade it to exercise its power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash such criminal proceedings, for that would prevent abuse of process of the court, and secure the ends of justice. In the aforesaid judgment titled Prashant Bharti v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2013) 9 SCC 293, [LQ/SC/2013/107] the Hon’ble Apex Court has held as under:-

“22. The proposition of law, pertaining to quashing of criminal proceedings, initiated against an accused by a High Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as “the Cr.P.C.”) has been dealt with by this Court in Rajiv Thapar & Ors. vs. Madan Lal Kapoor wherein this Court inter alia held as under: (2013) 3 SCC 330, [LQ/SC/2013/105] paras 29-30)

29. The issue being examined in the instant case is the jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., if it chooses to quash the initiation of the prosecution against an accused, at the stage of issuing process, or at the stage of committal, or even at the stage of framing of charges. These are all stages before the commencement of the actual trial. The same parameters would naturally be available for later stages as well. The power vested in the High Court under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., at the stages referred to hereinabove, would have far reaching consequences, inasmuch as, it would negate the prosecution’s/complainant’s case without allowing the prosecution/complainant to lead evidence. Such a determination must always be rendered with caution, care and circumspection. To invoke its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. the High Court has to be fully satisfied, that the material produced by the accused is such, that would lead to the conclusion, that his/their defence is based on sound, reasonable, and indubitable facts; the material produced is such, as would rule out and displace the assertions contained in the charges levelled against the accused; and the material produced is such, as would clearly reject and overrule the veracity of the allegations contained in the accusations levelled by the prosecution/complainant. It should be sufficient to rule out, reject and discard the accusations levelled by the prosecution/complainant, without the necessity of recording any evidence. For this the material relied upon by the defence should not have been refuted, or alternatively, cannot be justifiably refuted, being material of sterling and impeccable quality. The material relied upon by the accused should be such, as would persuade a reasonable person to dismiss and condemn the actual basis of the accusations as false. In such a situation, the judicial conscience of the High Court would persuade it to exercise its power under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. to quash such criminal proceedings, for that would prevent abuse of process of the court, and secure the ends of justice.

30. Based on the factors canvassed in the foregoing paragraphs, we would delineate the following steps to determine the veracity of a prayer for quashing, raised by an accused by invoking the power vested in the High Court under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C.:-

30.1 Step one, whether the material relied upon by the accused is sound, reasonable, and indubitable, i.e., the material is of sterling and impeccable quality

30.2 Step two, whether the material relied upon by the accused, would rule out the assertions contained in the charges levelled against the accused, i.e., the material is sufficient to reject and overrule the factual assertions contained in the complaint, i.e., the material is such, as would persuade a reasonable person to dismiss and condemn the factual basis of the accusations as false.

30.3 Step three, whether the material relied upon by the accused, has not been refuted by the prosecution/complainant; and/or the material is such, that it cannot be justifiably refuted by the prosecution/complainant

30.4 Step four, whether proceeding with the trial would result in an abuse of process of the court, and would not serve the ends of justice

30.5 If the answer to all the steps is in the affirmative, judicial conscience of the High Court should persuade it to quash such criminal - proceedings, in exercise of power vested in it under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. Such exercise of power, besides doing justice to the accused, would save precious court time, which would otherwise be wasted in holding such a trial (as well as, proceedings arising therefrom) specially when, it is clear that the same would not conclude in the conviction of the accused.”

11. Hon'ble Apex Court in Asmathunnisa v. State of A.P. (2011) 11 SCC 259, [LQ/SC/2011/448] has held as under:

“12. This Court, in a number of cases, has laid down the scope and ambit of the High Court's power under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Inherent power under section 482 Cr.P.C. though wide have to be exercised sparingly, carefully and with great caution and only when such exercise is justified 9 by the tests specifically laid down in this section itself. Authority of the court exists for the advancement of justice. If any abuse of the process leading to injustice is brought to the notice of the court, then the Court would be justified in preventing injustice by invoking inherent powers in absence of specific provisions in the Statute.

13. The law has been crystallized more than half a century ago in the case of R.P. Kapur v. State of Punjab AIR 1960 SC 866 [LQ/SC/1960/96] wherein this Court has summarized some categories of cases where inherent power can and should be exercised to quash the proceedings. This Court summarized the following three broad categories where the High Court would be justified in exercise of its powers under section 482:

(i) where it manifestly appears that there is a legal bar against the institution or continuance of the proceedings;

(ii) where the allegations in the first information report or complaint taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not constitute the offence alleged;

(iii) where the allegations constitute an offence but there is no legal evidence adduced or the evidence adduced clearly or manifestly fails to prove the charge."

14. In Smt. Nagawwa v. Veeranna Shivalingappa Konjalgi and Others (1976) 3 SCC 736, [LQ/SC/1976/191] according to the court, the process against the accused can be quashed or set aside :

"(1) where the allegations made in the complaint or the statements of the witnesses recorded in support of the same taken at their face value make out absolutely no case against the accused or the complaint does not disclose the essential ingredients of an offence which is alleged against the accused;

(2) where the allegations made in the complaint are patently absurd and inherently improbable so that no 10 prudent person can ever reach a conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused;

(3) where the discretion exercised by the Magistrate in issuing process is capricious and arbitrary having been based either on no evidence or on materials which are wholly irrelevant or inadmissible; and

(4) where the complaint suffers from fundamental legal defects, such as, want of sanction, or absence of a complaint by legally competent authority and the like".

15. This court in State of Karnataka v. L. Muniswamy & Others (1977) 2 SCC 699, [LQ/SC/1977/113] observed that the wholesome power under section 482 Cr.P.C. entitles the High Court to quash a proceeding when it comes to the conclusion that allowing the proceedings to continue would be an abuse of the process of the court or that the ends of justice requires that the proceedings ought to be quashed. The High Courts have been invested with inherent powers, both in civil and criminal matters, to achieve a salutary public purpose. A Court proceeding ought not to be permitted to degenerate into a weapon of harassment or persecution. In this case, the court observed that ends of justice are higher than the ends of mere law though justice must be administered according to laws made by the Legislature. This case has been followed in a large number of subsequent cases of this court and other courts.”

12. Hon'ble Apex Court in Asmathunnisa (supra) has categorically held that where discretion exercised by the Magistrate in issuing process is capricious and arbitrary having been based either on no evidence or on materials which are wholly irrelevant or inadmissible; and where the complaint suffers from fundamental legal defects, such as, want of sanction, or absence of a complaint by legally competent authority and the like, High Court would be justified in exercise of its powers under S. 482 CrPC.

13. From the bare perusal of aforesaid exposition of law, it is quite apparent that exercising its inherent power under Section 482 Cr.PC., High Court can proceed to quash the proceedings, if it comes to the conclusion that allowing the proceedings to continue would be an abuse of process of the law.

14. Now being guided by the aforesaid law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court from time to time, this court would make an endeavour to find out “whether FIR sought to be quashed discloses offence, if any, punishable under Sections 420, 468 and 471 of IPC or not and evidentiary material collected on record by the prosecution is sufficient to connect the accused named in the FIR with the alleged commission of offence or not

15. Admittedly, in the case at hand, complaint submitted by respondent No.2 to the SHO PS Manali dated 11.7.2015 (Annexure P-3), clearly reveals that at no point of time, above named respondent alleged that the petitioner herein obtained electricity meters in his premises by forging the signatures of Baldev, who happens to be father of the petitioner and husband of the complainant, rather she alleged that she has acquired information under RTI that petitioner forged the signature of her husband in the years, 1999 and 2000 as witness. She alleged that petitioner has been attempting to grab her property. Police after having conducted investigation on the basis of the aforesaid complaint, submitted the cancellation report, specifically stating therein that petitioner submitted two applications dated 18.8.1999 and 4.4.2000 for extension and reduction of the load forging thereupon signatures of his father as witness. Police categorically submitted in the cancellation report (Annexure-P5) that as per the Electricity Board, there is no manipulation in the records and no loss, if any, has been caused on account of forging of signature of witness. Police during investigation found that civil litigation inter-se petitioner and respondent No.2 is already pending on account of the property dispute. However, subsequently, Judicial Magistrate First Class, Manali, taking cognizance of the objections to the cancellation report filed by the police, passed order dated 5.4.2018 (Annexure P-6), stating therein that there are several lacunas in the investigation conducted by the police and investigation conducted by the police is not satisfactory. Vide aforesaid order, court below directed re-investigation in the present FIR. Interestingly, after having received the aforesaid order, police reinvestigated the matter and found prima-facie case against the petitioner under Sections 420, 468 and 471 of IPC. Police after having lodged the FIR sought to be quashed submitted report before the court below under Section 173 Cr.PC, stating therein that the petitioner with an intention to grab the property of his mother and brother attempted to get the electricity meters installed on his name by forging signatures of his father Baldev as witness. If the aforesaid report submitted by the police is read in its entirety, father of the petitioner and husband of respondent-complainant Baldev is missing since 17.5.1996 and present petitioner vide applications dated 18.8.1999 and 4.4.2000 made request to Electricity Board for reduction/extension of load. There is nothing in the report against the petitioner that he attempted or got the electricity meter connection installed in his house by forging the signature of his father, rather as per own case of the police, electricity meters found installed in the premises were on the name of the petitioner, rather, precise allegation against him is that he with a view to get the load extended/reduced qua the meters installed in the premises forged the signatures of his father as witness. Electricity Board officials during investigation disclosed to the police that there is no manipulation of the records by the petitioner for getting the electricity meter installed in his name. It has been further stated by the officers of the Electricity Board that no loss has been caused to the Electricity Board on account of forging of signatures of the witness and had some other person than Baldev Singh signed as witness, it would not have made much difference as far as prayer for extension and reduction of the load qua the meters in question by the petitioner is concerned. Most importantly, if the report submitted by the police under Section 173 Cr.PC is perused in its entirety, it clearly reveals that relationship inter-se petitioner and respondent No.2 is estranged on account of property dispute. Repeatedly, respondent has been alleging against the petitioner is that he is trying to grab the property of her husband and on account of property dispute, many complaints and litigations are pending.

16. Having carefully perused the material available on record, this court has reason to presume and believe that respondent No.2 has attempted to give civil dispute colour of criminal proceedings. Otherwise also, if the provisions contained under Section 420, 468 and 471 of IPC are read in its entirety, this Court finds sufficient force in the submission made by Mr. Maan Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner that since basic ingredients of sections 420, 468 and 471 of IPC are not proved, case registered against the petitioner is bound to fail. To bring the case under ambit of Sections 420, 468 and 471 of IPC, it is incumbent upon the prosecution to prove that petitioner dishonestly induced the department to release electricity connection in his favour by forging the signature of his father Baldev, however, in the case at hand, it stands duly established on record that electricity meter already stood sanctioned in the name of the petitioner. Precise allegation against the petitioner is that he by way of forging signatures of his father Baldev Singh made a prayer for extension/reduction of the load qua the meter, which already stood sanctioned in the name of the petitioner. In the case at hand, no document, if any, ever signed by Baldev Singh came to be used by the petitioner for getting the electricity meter sanctioned, rather allegedly petitioner forged the signature of Bladev Singh as witness on the applications made by him for extension/reduction of the load qua the meter already sanctioned in his name and as such, no case can be said to have been made out against the petitioner under Sections 420, 468 and 471 of IPC. Leaving everything aside, material available on record clearly establishes factum with regard to old animosity inter-se petitioner and respondent No.2-complainant on account of property dispute and as such, complaint lodged by the respondent-complaint leveling therein allegation with regard to forging of signature of Baldev Singh, who otherwise happens to be father of the petitioner is nothing but an attempt on behalf of the respondent to create evidence against the petitioner, who has been allegedly making attempts to grab the property of the respondent No. 2 and his brother.

17. In view of the detailed discussion made herein above and law taken into consideration, there appears to be sufficient ground for this Court to exercise its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C, for quashing of FIR and consequent criminal proceedings against the petitioners, to prevent abuse of process of law and to prevent unnecessary harassment to the petitioner against whom there is no evidence to connect him with the commission of offences as incorporated in the FIR. Otherwise also, continuance of the criminal proceedings against the petitioner in the present case would be a sheer wastage of time of the learned trial Court and the same would amount to subjecting the petitioner to unnecessary and protracted ordeal of trial, which is bound to culminate in acquittal. If the evidentiary material collected on record to prove the guilt of the petitioner is perused in its entirety, this is no sufficient material to connect the petitioner with the offence alleged to have been committed by him. To the contrary if on the basis of material adduced on record by the investigating agency, trial is allowed to continue, great prejudice would be caused to the petitioner and same would amount to sheer abuse of process of law.

18. Consequently, in view of the detailed discussion made herein above as well as law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court, present petition is allowed and FIR No. 111, dated 12.7.2015, registered at PS Manali, District Kullu, H.P., under Sections 420, 468 and 471 of IPC as well as consequent proceedings, if any, pending in the competent court of law are quashed and set-aside. Petitioner is acquitted of the charges framed against him in the aforesaid FIR. Accordingly, present petition is disposed of, so also pending applications, if any.