Forgery Of ACR Is No Part Of Official Duty: Punjab & Haryana High Court Refuses To Quash FIR Against IFS Officer

“Defence And Disputed Facts Cannot Be Examined Under Section 482 Cr.P.C.”, In a significant ruling on the scope of inherent powers and the protection available to public servants, the Punjab and Haryana High Court dismissed a petition seeking quashing of an FIR alleging forgery and manipulation of a colleague’s Annual Confidential Report (ACR) to obstruct promotion to the Indian Forest Service (IFS).

Justice Jasjit Singh Bedi upheld FIR No. 201 dated 30.07.2011 and the order dated 03.12.2018 framing charges under Sections 467, 468, 471, 166, 120B IPC and Sections 8 & 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, holding that the material on record disclosed “grave suspicion” sufficient to proceed to trial.

The Court emphatically observed that “forgery of a document cannot be said to be done in the discharge or purported discharge of official duties.”

ACR Tampered To Block Promotion To IFS

The complainant, a Haryana Forest Service officer, alleged that while his ACR for the period 01.04.2009 to 14.07.2009 was in official custody, forged remarks were inserted in the column of the reviewing authority. The original remark “I agree” was allegedly altered by adding the words “up to some extent but he is dishonest,” thereby adversely affecting his promotion prospects to the IFS cadre.

During investigation, statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C. were recorded. The Superintendent (Varinder Sharma) and Clerk (Devender Kumar) allegedly disclosed that the forged remarks were inserted at the behest of the petitioner. It was further alleged that money was paid to secure a favourable handwriting opinion from the Forensic Science Laboratory.

Charges were framed on 03.12.2018. The petitioner invoked Section 482 Cr.P.C. (now Section 528 of the BNSS) seeking quashing of the FIR and consequential proceedings.

“Bhajan Lal Principles Govern The Field”

The Court began by reiterating the settled parameters laid down in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, emphasising that an FIR can be quashed only when:

“the allegations made in the First Information Report… even if taken at their face value… do not prima facie constitute any offence” or are “so absurd and inherently improbable” that no prudent person could proceed.

Justice Bedi underscored that at the stage of quashing, the Court must look only at the uncontroverted allegations and cannot embark upon appreciation of defence material or adjudication of disputed facts.

Citing a long line of Supreme Court authorities, including Maksud Saiyed, Koppisetti Subbharao, Rishipal Singh, and Sumit Bansal, the Court reiterated that “disputed questions of fact and the defence of an accused cannot be examined” in proceedings under Section 482.

Motive And Comparative Merit: Matters For Trial

The petitioner argued that he had no motive to forge the ACR as he himself was within the zone of consideration for promotion and had an outstanding record. He contended that the complainant’s own service record was doubtful, and therefore he could not have been promoted in any case.

Rejecting these contentions, the Court held that such pleas involve factual adjudication and evaluation of evidence, which lies exclusively within the domain of the trial court.

The Court noted that the statements of the Superintendent and Clerk prima facie indicated that the forged remarks were inserted at the petitioner’s behest and that efforts were made to obtain a favourable handwriting report.

This material, the Court held, created “grave suspicion” sufficient to frame charges.

“Forgery Cannot Be Said To Be In Discharge Of Official Duty”

A central issue raised by the petitioner was the absence of prior sanction under Section 197 Cr.P.C. He argued that being a public servant, cognizance could not be taken without sanction.

The Court, relying on recent Supreme Court decisions including Om Prakash Yadav v. Niranjan Kumar Upadhyay and Shadakshari v. State of Karnataka, clarified that protection under Section 197 is available only when the alleged act is integrally connected with official duty.

Justice Bedi observed:

“For the offences of forgery etc., sanction under Section 197 Cr.P.C. is not required, moreso, in a case when it pertains to the forgery of an ACR of a colleague. In fact, the petitioner could not be said to be acting in discharge of his official duty while conspiring to forge the said ACR.”

The Court emphasized that fabrication of records cannot be treated as part of official duty merely because the opportunity arose from holding office.

Framing Of Charges: “Grave Suspicion Is Sufficient”

Relying on Union of India v. Prafulla Kumar Samal, the Court reiterated that at the stage of framing charges, detailed appreciation of evidence is impermissible. The existence of “grave suspicion” is sufficient.

Given the statements recorded during investigation and the allegations of conspiracy and manipulation, the Court found the material adequate to sustain the order framing charges.

Successive Petition And Advanced Stage Of Trial

An additional factor weighed with the Court. The petitioner had earlier filed a quashing petition which he withdrew with liberty to raise pleas before the trial court. After framing of charges, he filed the present petition without demonstrating any new material.

The Court noted that five out of thirty-eight prosecution witnesses had already been examined. At such an advanced stage, interference under Section 482 was unwarranted.

“Nothing new has come on record to persuade this Court to take a different view,” the Court observed.

Petition Dismissed, Trial To Be Concluded Within Six Months

Finding no merit in the petition, the High Court dismissed the plea for quashing and upheld both the FIR and the order framing charges. The trial court has been directed to expedite proceedings and conclude the trial preferably within six months.

The judgment reiterates that inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. are to be exercised sparingly and that public servants cannot seek shelter under Section 197 Cr.P.C. when allegations pertain to fabrication or forgery of official records.

Date of Decision: 17/02/2026