JUDGMENT : ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY, J. Heard the parties. 2. This Criminal Miscellaneous Petition has been filed invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 with the prayer to quash the entire criminal proceedings of Gomia P.S. Case No.04 of 2016 corresponding to G.R. Case No.39 of 2016 including the order dated 04.05.2017 whereby and where under cognizance has been taken by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Bermo at Tenughat of the offences punishable under Sections 419, 420, 466, 467, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. The brief facts of the case is that the petitioner submitted a forged certificate of having pursued the course from the Institute of Medical Technology and on the basis of that forged certificate created for the purpose of cheating and by using the said forged document to be a genuine one, committed cheating by obtaining employment as Laboratory Technician in the office of Civil Surgeon-cum-Chief Medical Officer, Bokaro and on the certificate produced by the petitioner being verified, it was found out that the petitioner has submitted a forged certificate of the Institute of Medical Technology which claims to have been registered with Registration No.132 of 2001, but the said registration number was found to belong to an organization in the name and style of Mahila Samajik Sewa Samiti. On detection of forgery and cheating being committed by the petitioner, the In-charge Medical Officer, Primary Health Centre Gomia, Bermo where the petitioner was working, lodged the written report with Gomia Police Station. Basing upon the same, Gomia P.S. Case No. 04 of 2016 was registered and police took up the investigation of the case. After completion of the investigation, police submitted charge-sheet against the petitioner finding the allegations against the petitioner of having committed the offences punishable under Sections 419, 420, 466, 467, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code to be true and basing upon the said charge-sheet, the learned Judicial Magistrate, Bermo at Tenughat has taken cognizance of the said offences. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the case is next fixed to 26.03.2026 for appearance of the petitioner and the petitioner has not appeared before the learned trial court as yet and charge has not yet been framed. 5. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the case is next fixed to 26.03.2026 for appearance of the petitioner and the petitioner has not appeared before the learned trial court as yet and charge has not yet been framed. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Priyanka Kumari & Others vs. The State of Bihar & Others reported in 2026 INSC 167 wherein in the facts of that case, the appellants before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India studied in a university set up under the 2002 Act enacted by the Chhattisgarh State Legislature but the Act was declared ultra vires by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India vide its order dated 11.02.2025 and till such time, the students had been studying and passing out from the said university and at the time of declaration of the said Act to be ultra vires, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India protected the students who were still studying and they were directed to be transferred to alternative institutions recognized by the State; and submits that considering the facts and factual situation in that case, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India observed that the appellants before it cannot be said to be at fault as they had studied in the University, which has been set up under the 2002 Act enacted by the State Legislature, hence, they should not be deprived of the benefits of the degree obtained by them while studying in the university; and submits that as in this case, the petitioner had no knowledge that the Institute of Medical Technology was not a duly registered institute to impart the training of medical technology and to issue technical certificate; so, no illegality has been committed by the petitioner. 6. It is next submitted that Mahila Samajik Sewa Samiti passed a resolution to run a para-medical institute in the name of Institute of Medical Technology and thus, Institute of Medical Technology is a part of Mahila Samajik Sewa Samiti. It is further submitted that the petitioner has pursued the course, appeared in the final examination. He has been issued the mark-sheet. He has been declared pass. So, no illegality has been committed by the petitioner. It is further submitted that the petitioner has pursued the course, appeared in the final examination. He has been issued the mark-sheet. He has been declared pass. So, no illegality has been committed by the petitioner. It is further submitted that since the petitioner has got himself registered under the Jharkhand State Para-Medical Council vide Registration No.1736 dated 07.10.2014, it cannot be said that the petitioner has forged any document. It is also submitted that the offence punishable under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code is not made out against the petitioner. Hence, it is submitted that the prayer, as prayed for in the instant Cr.M.P., be allowed. 7. Learned Addl. P. P. appearing for the State on the other hand vehemently opposes the prayer of the petitioner made in the instant Cr.M.P. and submits that drawing parallels between the facts of the case of Priyanka Kumari & Others vs. The State of Bihar & Others (supra) and the present case is a fallacious one; because in the case of Priyanka Kumari & Others vs. The State of Bihar & Others (supra) the students were admitted when the university was running on the basis of an enactment of the Chhattisgarh State Legislature, which was competent to pass such legislation. Subsequently, after about three years of such enactment and creation of the university, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India declared the said Act to be ultra vires but protected the students but, in this case, admittedly the Institute of Medical Technology was not created by any competent authority or under any competent legislation. It is then submitted that Mahila Samajik Sewa Samiti is a society registered under the Societies Registration Act. It itself does not have any authority to authorize someone else to run an institute of medical technology, so, even if it assumed for the sake of arguments that Mahila Samajik Sewa Samiti has authorized the Institute of Medical Technology to run a medical technology institution; but Mahila Samajik Sewa Samiti itself having no such power under any competent legislation, such permission is non est in the eye of law and will be of no help to the petitioner. So far as the contention of the petitioner that the petitioner was not aware that the Institute of Medical Technology was not a duly constituted institute under any law, is not sustainable because it is a settled principle of law that ignorance of law is not an excuse. 8. It is further by the learned Addl. P. P. that police during the investigation of the case has found the complicity of the petitioner in committing forgery of the technical certificate produced by the petitioner and after finding the allegations against the petitioner to be true, has submitted charge-sheet against the petitioner for having committed the said offences. It is then submitted that it is a settled principle of law that at the time of taking cognizance based on the charge-sheet submitted by the police upon investigation done on an F.I.R., the learned Magistrate cannot add or subtract any provision of law and the same can only be done at the time of framing of charge. So, even if one or the other offence in respect of which charge-sheet is submitted, is not made out but at the stage of taking cognizance, the learned Magistrate cannot add or subtract the same and the same can only be done at the time of framing of charge. It is then submitted that framing of charge is not possible because of the non-cooperation of the petitioner by absconding for a period over six years even though his anticipatory bail application was dismissed by this Court after withdrawal of his anticipatory bail application from this Court. Therefore, it is submitted that this Cr.M.P., being without any merit, be dismissed. 9. Therefore, it is submitted that this Cr.M.P., being without any merit, be dismissed. 9. Having heard the rival submissions made at the Bar and after carefully going through the materials available in the record, it is pertinent to mention here that it is a settled principle of law that if the investigating authorities for any reason whatsoever have failed to include all the offences in the charge-sheet based on the F.I.R. on which investigation had been conducted, the Magistrate before whom the matter comes up for taking cognizance after submission of the charge- sheet, cannot fill up the lacunae and the Magistrate in a case which is based on a police report cannot add or subtract sections at the time of taking cognizance; as the same would be permissible by the trial court only at the time of framing the charge under Section 216, 218 or under Section 228 of the Cr.P.C. as the case may be; as has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of State of Gujarat vs. Girish Radhakrishnan Varde reported in (2014) 3 SCC 659 paragraph-15 of which reads as under:- “15 . The question, therefore, emerges as to whether the complainant/informant/prosecution would be precluded from seeking a remedy if the investigating authorities have failed in their duty by not including all the sections of IPC on which offence can be held to have been made out in spite of the facts disclosed in the FIR. The answer obviously has to be in the negative as the prosecution cannot be allowed to suffer prejudice by ignoring exclusion of the sections which constitute the offence if the investigating authorities for any reason whatsoever have failed to include all the offences into the charge-sheet based on the FIR on which investigation had been conducted. The answer obviously has to be in the negative as the prosecution cannot be allowed to suffer prejudice by ignoring exclusion of the sections which constitute the offence if the investigating authorities for any reason whatsoever have failed to include all the offences into the charge-sheet based on the FIR on which investigation had been conducted. But then a further question arises as to whether this lacunae can be allowed to be filled in by the Magistrate before whom the matter comes up for taking cognizance after submission of the charge-sheet and as already stated, the Magistrate in a case which is based on a police report cannot add or subtract sections at the time of taking cognizance as the same would be permissible by the trial court only at the time of framing of charge under Sections 216, 218 or under Section 228 CrPC as the case may be which means that after submission of the charge-sheet it will be open for the prosecution to contend before the appropriate trial court at the stage of framing of charge to establish that on the given state of facts the appropriate sections which according to the prosecution should be framed can be allowed to be framed. Simultaneously, the accused also has the liberty at this stage to submit whether the charge under a particular provision should be framed or not and this is the appropriate forum in a case based on police report to determine whether the charge can be framed and a particular section can be added or removed depending upon the material collected during investigation as also the facts disclosed in the FIR and the charge-sheet.” (Emphasis supplied) 10. Now, coming to the facts of the case, the undisputed fact remains that the technical certificate produced by the petitioner to get employed with the Civil Surgeon-cum-Chief Medical Officer as a Laboratory Technician, was not issued by any competent authority though it is the case of the petitioner that the Institute of Medical Technology got approval from a Mahila Samajik Sewa Samiti registered under the Societies Registration Act but such Samiti having been no legal authority to authorize anyone to run medical technology institute, so, accordingly grant of any permission or not, by such incompetent authority, is of no avail and certainly cannot be of any help to the petitioner. The petitioner claims that he was unaware about the forgery committed by a person who issued the certificate to him but during the investigation of the case the police has found the complicity of the petitioner in commission of each of the offences. So, at best, it can be a defence of the petitioner that he is innocent but the same can be taken only at the time of trial of the case and not while exercising the power under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. as it is a settled principle of law that no mini trial can be conducted by the High Court in exercise of the power under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure to get into the appreciation of the evidence of the particular case as has been reiterated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of State of Uttar Pradesh & Another vs. Akhil Sharda & Others reported in 2022 SCC OnLine SC 820 relevant portion of which reads as under:- “Having gone through the impugned judgment and order passed by the High court has set aside the criminal proceedings in exercise of powers under Section 482 CrPC, it appears that the High Court has virtually conducted a mini trial, which as such is not permissible at this stage and while deciding the application under Section 482CrPC. As observed and held by this court in a catena of decisions, no mini trial can be conducted by the High Court in exercise of power under Section 482CrPC, jurisdiction and at the stage of deciding the application under Section 482CrPC, the High Court cannot get into appreciation of evidence of the particular case being considering.” (Emphasis supplied) 11. As observed and held by this court in a catena of decisions, no mini trial can be conducted by the High Court in exercise of power under Section 482CrPC, jurisdiction and at the stage of deciding the application under Section 482CrPC, the High Court cannot get into appreciation of evidence of the particular case being considering.” (Emphasis supplied) 11. So far as the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Priyanka Kumari & Others vs. The State of Bihar & Others (supra) is concerned, the facts of that case are entirely different from the facts of this case in the sense that in that case at the time of taking admission of the students in the university concerned, the university concerned was a lawful university having been created by the enactment in terms of the 2002 Act enacted by the Chhattisgarh State Legislature but in this case, the Institute of Medical Technology, at no point of time, was a lawful organization competent to issue technical certificate of the nature produced by the petitioner before the Civil Surgeon-cum-Chief Medical Officer in order to get himself employed. Hence, this Court is of the considered view that the ratio of Priyanka Kumari & Others vs. The State of Bihar & Others (supra) is not applicable to the facts of this case. 12. So far as the contention of the petitioner that one or the other offence is not made is concerned, as already indicated above, the same can only be considered by the learned Magistrate at the time of consideration of framing of charge in view of settled principle of law by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of State of Gujarat vs. Girish Radhakrishnan Varde (supra) 13. In view of the discussions made above, since police after investigation of the case, has found the allegation against the petitioner of committing forgery and cheating to be true and basing upon the same, the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance of the offences as already indicated above, hence, this Court is of the considered view that there is no justifiable reason to accede to the prayer made by the petitioner in this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition in exercise of its power under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. 14. Accordingly, this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition, being without any merit, is dismissed.