Criminal prosecution for age misstatement is impermissible absent prima facie proof of deception or forgery.

The petitioner, a former government employee, was appointed as a Peon/Pattawala in the Gujarat Irrigation Department in 1983.

At the time of appointment, an affidavit sworn by his mother declared his date of birth as 02.06.1959, whereas a subsequently obtained duplicate SSC marksheet recorded it as 02.06.1957.

The prosecution alleged that the petitioner had falsely shown himself to be within the prescribed age limit and had thereby obtained government employment by cheating the State.

After departmental correspondence and an inquiry, the petitioner was relieved from service on 30.06.2015, and an FIR was registered on 01.10.2018 at Palitana Police Station for offences under Sections 468, 471, 406, 420 and 120-B of the IPC.

The petitioner invoked Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, seeking quashing of the FIR and consequential proceedings.

He contended that the discrepancy in the date of birth had been expressly disclosed in his mother’s affidavit, which was available to the Department from the time of his appointment, and that there was no forged document or fraudulent concealment.

The Court also noted that the petitioner’s pensionary benefits had been withheld, although no departmental inquiry had been concluded.

Whether the allegations in the FIR, even if accepted at face value, prima facie constituted offences under Sections 468, 471, 406, 420 and 120-B of the IPC.

Whether the petitioner’s alleged procurement of government employment by relying on an affidavit stating his date of birth as 02.06.1959 disclosed the ingredients of cheating or forgery, particularly when the affidavit and the date-of-birth discrepancy were known to the Department.

Whether continuation of the criminal proceedings amounted to an abuse of the process of law warranting exercise of the High Court’s inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC.

The Court exercised its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC to prevent abuse of the process of law and to secure the ends of justice.

It considered the ingredients of offences under Sections 468 and 471 IPC, which require forgery and use of a forged document; Section 406 IPC, which requires dishonest misappropriation or criminal breach of trust; Section 420 IPC, which requires cheating and dishonest or fraudulent inducement; and Section 120-B IPC, which requires a criminal conspiracy.

The Court applied the principles in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, AIR 1992 SC 604, particularly the categories permitting quashing where the allegations, taken at face value, do not constitute an offence, where the uncontroverted material does not disclose commission of an offence, or where continuation of the proceedings would amount to abuse of process.

The Court found that the prosecution’s case rested substantially on the SSC marksheet showing the petitioner’s date of birth as 02.06.1957 and the allegation that he had obtained employment by representing himself as younger than the prescribed age.

However, the petitioner’s mother’s affidavit dated 09.12.1982 expressly stated that the school record contained an inadvertent error and that his correct date of birth was 02.06.1959.

That affidavit was available to and verified by the Department when the petitioner was appointed.

Consequently, the Court held that there was no material showing that the petitioner had fabricated or used a forged document, suppressed the relevant discrepancy, or dishonestly induced the State.

The subsequent discovery of a different date of birth in the duplicate marksheet, without more, did not satisfy the statutory ingredients of forgery, cheating, criminal breach of trust, or conspiracy.

The Court further considered that the petitioner had remained in service for nearly three decades and that the Department itself had been unable to conclude disciplinary proceedings, making continuation of the FIR an abuse of process.

It held that the FIR did not prima facie disclose the ingredients of Sections 468, 471, 406, 420 or 120-B IPC and that the criminal proceedings were an abuse of the process of law.

The application under Section 482 CrPC was allowed, and FIR C.R. No. I-80/2018 registered with Palitana Police Station, District Bhavnagar, together with all consequential proceedings, was quashed and set aside.

Rule was made absolute.