HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 44660 of 2024 Court No. - 89 HON'BLE KSHITIJ SHAILENDRA, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State. 2. This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed challenging the chargesheet dated 04.04.2024 and cognizance order dated 24.06.2025 as well as entire proceedings of Criminal Case No.38335 of 2024, arising out of Case Crime No.0303 of 2023, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 I.P.C., Police Station-Surajpur, District-Central Commissionerate Gautam Buddh Nagar. 3. Submission is that there is no forgery or fabrication committed by the applicant as the earlier marksheet reflecting 30.06.1984 as date of birth was never used for the purposes of securing appointment in police services, rather based upon High School qualification obtained second time and the marksheet mentioning 10.06.1995 as date of birth, appointment was secured and, hence, no offence has been committed. It is further contended that based upon F.I.R., the applicant has already been suspended and, thereafter, terminated from services and matter is pending before this Court challenging the termination order. 4. Learned A.G.A. submits that once the applicant himself admits that he possesses with two certificates pertaining to High School Examination, one indicating date of birth as 30.06.1984 and the other as 10.06.1995 and there being difference of 11 years in between two dates of birth, using the Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Ajay Kumar Yadav, Durga Prasad Tiwari, Shaheen Ansari, Shrawan Kumar Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Laxmikant .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. and Another .....Opposite Party(s) document to get into service amounts to offence, under which, cognizance has been taken. 5. Be that as it may, considering the fact that the passing High School Examination twice is a fact admitted by the applicant and there are two certificates indicating his date of birth, at this stage, it cannot be said that applicant honestly entered into service, however, irrespective of the service matter, as to whether there is sufficient evidence to prosecute the applicant in the concerned criminal case is a matter to be seen by the court exercising criminal jurisdiction in the light of specific penal provisions invoked against the applicant. 6. 6. In view of the above, while declining to quash the proceedings of the aforesaid case, this application is disposed of permitting the applicant to avail appropriate statutory remedies in the matter which, if invoked, shall be dealt with, in accordance with law, irrespective of non-interference in chargesheet. September 15, 2025 Jyotsana A482 No. 44660 of 2024 2 (Kshitij Shailendra,J.) Digitally signed by :- JYOTSANA SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad