AMAR SARAN, J. Heard learned Counsel for the applicants and learned AGA. 2. This application has been filed praying for quashing of the charge-sheet dated 8. 3. 2007 as well as entire proceedings of Case CBN No. 143/2005, State v. Chunni Lal, arising out of Case Crime No. 126/2005, under sections 409, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B IPC, P. S. Pooranpur, District Pilibhit pend ing in the Court of CJM, Pilibhit. 3. Although time was granted to op posite party no. 2 to file counter affidavit, no counter affidavit has been filed and I have decided to hear the case and to dis pose it of at this stage itself without extend ing further time to file the counter affidavit. 4. It is noteworthy that the appli cants have already secured bail in this case. 5. The allegations in the FIR lodged by Sri Dharam Singh, Inspector. C. B. CID, Bareilly, on 11. 2. 2005 at P. S. Pooranpur, were that an investigation into an offence under sections 302, 201 IPC was being conducted by C. B. CID, Bareilly Centre. Dur ing the course of investigation it was re vealed that the accused in the case afore said under section 302 IPC etc. homegaurd. Suraj Prasad, was posted at Chowki Dhudhunwai, District Pilibhit, in September, 2003. On 10. 9. 2003, Homeguard Suraj Prasad was absent from his duty, an entry about which was entered by clerk Rajaram at the Chowki Dhudhunwai and on 13. 9. 2003 his return was shown. However, the Platoon Commander, Homeguards, prepared the muster roll for September, 2003 and in the said muster roll on the 10th, 11th and 12th of September, 2003 the Company Commander, Puranpur, appli cant Abdul Nafees Khan and applicant Roshan Lal Verma gave their signatures showing the presence of Suraj Prasad on the said date and even forwarded the bill for work payment of Rs. 170/- which was released to Suraj Prasad and in this manner they are said to have entered into a con spiracy with Suraj Prasad to commit this illegal act, because of which Suraj Prasad illegally withdrew an unlawful amount of Rs. 170/- from the Government account. 6. It was argued by the learned Counsel for the applicants that for a petty amount of Rs. 170/- the applicants, who were not directly responsible for the prepa ration of muster roll, have been arraigned as accused. 7. 170/- from the Government account. 6. It was argued by the learned Counsel for the applicants that for a petty amount of Rs. 170/- the applicants, who were not directly responsible for the prepa ration of muster roll, have been arraigned as accused. 7. I am not in agreement with the submission of the learned Counsel for the applicants because it appears that the said forged presence in the muster roll has been shown in order to create an alibi for the accused Suraj Prasad in the case in which he is accused under section 302 IPC etc. Therefore, the case assumes a more serious dimension and it cannot be said that the forgery was committed only to embezzle a petty sum from government account. Moreover, what duty "was assigned to the applicants and whether they were in fact required to verify the attendance of Suraj Prasad on the relevant dates are matters to be looked into and examined during the trial of the case when defence evidence can be led. 8. I cannot help remarking that such instances of police personnel attempting to help other police personnel who are in volved in grave crimes by making forged entries in public records is now becoming rampant. Such practices need to be curbed with a heavy hand. 9. This application, therefore, has no force and is rejected. Application Rejected. .