Alok Tripathi vs The State of Madhya Pradesh

Sujoy Paul, J.—Heard. Petitioner is aggrieved by order Annexure P-1 dated 19.6.2013 whereby the Principal of the college has requested the police authorities to lodge FIR against the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner challenged it on the ground that before issuance of Annexure P-1 petitioner has not been heard. In addition, it is contended that petitioner earlier filed W.P. No. 6647/12 before this Court which was allowed on 11.09.2012. W.A. No. 805/12 was dismissed by the Division Bench and, therefore, it is not open for the respondents to question the correctness/genuineness of the certificate in question.

I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

In the considered opinion of this Court, in the first round in W.P. No. 6647/12, the genuineness and correctness of the document/certificate was not the issue/question. Thus, this Court has not given any opinion on the said aspect. The said order dated 11.9.2012 is of no assistance to the petitioner in this regard. If the certificate is not genuine, fake or fabricated, the authorities can always lodge the FIR. The petitioner''s representation Annexure P-10 itself contains an averment that the petitioner''s certificate is fake, although he made allegation against some institution. Apart from this, before lodging FIR no hearing is contemplated.

The Supreme Court in Anju Chaudhary Vs. State of U.P. and Another, opined that at pre-registration of FIR no hearing is contemplated. It is further held that hearing is not contemplated at the stage of issuing direction u/s 156(3) of Cr.P.C. I am not impressed with the argument of Shri Nirankari that petitioner actually could not take benefit of the certificate in question. In the considered opinion of this Court, whether or not such certificate could fetch any result, the intention or submission of that certificate alone can be a ground for registering FIR. The petition is bereft of merit and is hereby dismissed.