JUDGMENT Hon’ble Servesh Kumar Gupta, J.: Notices were sent to respondent nos. 2 to 4 but despite sufficient service none has turned up on their behalf so this Court has given hearing to learned counsel for the applicant and Brief Holder for the State. 2. By way of this petition, the challenge is to the charge sheet pertaining to crime no. 53 of 2006 and the order of cognizance dated 28.11.2007 passed thereupon. 3. The facts of the case are that First Information Report was lodged by Ashish Panwar, Jitendra Dangwal and Veer Pal Singh against Raghuveer Singh Rawat, a student leader; Professor H.P. Bhatt, Director and Professor Surendra Joshi, Returning Officer of election, for the offence under Section 420, 120B IPC stating that in the Student Union’s Election for the year 2006-07 above named persons violated the Election Code of Conduct. Raghuveer Singh Rawat who was declared elected in the said election submitted his nomination form mentioning his date of birth as 26.07.1980 while actually, the same was 20.06.1978, as explicable in his High School Certificate issued by Uttar Pradesh Education Board. Had he mentioned the correct date of birth ‘20.06.1978’, he would have been disqualified for contesting the election. The Director of Campus and the Returning Officer also allowed Raghuveer Singh Rawat to contest the election with wrong date of birth, as explained above. This way, allegations were made that he cheated other candidates, who contested the election as well as university’s authorities. After investigation, chargesheet was submitted whereupon learned Magistrate took cognizance and asked the accused to stand trial for the offence. 4. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, it transpires that Raghuveer Singh Rawat won the election by securing 644 votes while informants Ashish Panwar secured 64 votes, Jitendra Dangwal secured 123 votes and Veer Pal Singh secured 22 votes. When these informants lost the election, they lodged the impugned First Information Report. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant has contended that the actual date of birth of applicant is 26.07.1980 but it was wrongly mentioned in High School Certificate as 20.06.1978. He was making persistent and consistent efforts to move to the competent authorities of Board of High School and Intermediate Education for rectification of the said error. In this regard, he moved an application dated 08.09.1997 (Annexure No. 7 to the petition) requesting for rectification of the error. He was making persistent and consistent efforts to move to the competent authorities of Board of High School and Intermediate Education for rectification of the said error. In this regard, he moved an application dated 08.09.1997 (Annexure No. 7 to the petition) requesting for rectification of the error. When no heed was paid by the Board, a notice dated 10.10.1997 through counsel (Annexure No. 8 to the petition) was sent. Again second notice dated 17.08.2005 was sent to the Board, which is Annexure No. 9 to the petition. Inasmuch as writ petition no. 947 (MS) of 2005 was filed in this Court seeking a direction to the competent authority of the Board for rectification of the error. Upon writ petition, notices were issued. 6. In contemplation of this Court, the concomitant of Section 420 IPC are not attracted in the present controversy. This First Information Report was an outcome of frustration of loosing candidates in the election and First Information Report appears to have been lodged to avenge from the winning candidate and as such it is disapproved. 7. In view of the above, petition has force. Impugned charge sheet dated 26.11.2007 as well as order of cognizance dated 28.11.2007 are hereby vacated.