Judgment : Vinod Kumar Roy, D.C. Srivastava 1. THE prayer of the petitioner is to quash the First Information Report of Crime No. 400 of 1994 under Section 420/468/471, I.P.C. Police Station Kotwali, district Kanpur Nagar. 2. SRI K. K. Tripathi, the learned counsel appearing in support of the petition, contended that the First Information Report in question is liable to be quashed for the following reasons : (i) On the same allegation, the petitioner's service was terminated but he moved the Lucknow Bench of this Court for quashing the order terminating his service in which an order staying operation of the termination order was also passed. (ii) Several similarly situated co-accused persons have moved this Court for the same relief in which interim orders have been passed restraining the respondents from arresting those co-accused persons. He also places reliance on a Judgment of the Supreme Court in Bir Bajrang Kumar v. State of Bihar, AIR 1987 SC 1345 . 3. IN Bir Bajrang Kumar, it appears that one of the cases involving an identical point was admitted by the Patna High Court which dismissed that of Bir Bajrang Kumar and in that backdrop, the Hon'ble Supreme Court explained that the dismissal of case of Bir Bajrang Kumar will create a very anomalous position as there will be a clear possibility of two contradictory judgments being rendered by that High Court. 4. HERE the position is somewhat different. The cases referred to by the learned counsel for the petitioner have not been admitted. To crown all, the learned counsel for the petitioner is not in a position to tell us as to how the facts and circumstances in those cases are similar to that of the petitioner in the instant case. In the instant F.I.R., the allegation against the petitioner is that in order to have unlawful gain, he has forged residential certificates and affidavits and has illegally secured his appointment. The allegations do disclose prima facie cognizable offences. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed. 5. BEFORE parting, we clarify that we are sure that the Investigating authority will apply its mind to the document and/or any material which the petitioner may show to it to prove his case that he has not forged any document for the purposes of securing his appointment in question. 6. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed. 5. BEFORE parting, we clarify that we are sure that the Investigating authority will apply its mind to the document and/or any material which the petitioner may show to it to prove his case that he has not forged any document for the purposes of securing his appointment in question. 6. THE office is directed to serve a copy of this order on the learned Addl. Government Advocate for its communication to and follow up action by the investigating authority.