Tarun Agarwala, J.— The Central Bureau of Investigation, after conducting a preliminary inquiry, registered a First Information Report dated 24th July, 2011 disclosing the commission of offences u/S 120-B, 420, 468 and 471 I.P.C. read with Section 12 of the Passport Act, 1967 against the applicant and unknown persons. The crux of the first information report was, that the applicant, by deceit and fraud, obtained forged educational certificates, on the basis of which, he obtained an Indian Passport. It was also alleged that the applicant was not an Indian but was a citizen of Nepal and, consequently, an Indian Passport could not be issued. Against the first information report, the applicant filed a Criminal Writ Petition No. 632 of 2011 which was ultimately disposed of with the direction that the applicant would not be arrested during the investigation and that he will cooperate in the investigation. Pursuant to the investigation, the C.B.I. has submitted a chargesheet before the designated court indicating that the applicant and another person Naresh Chand Dwivedi are allegedly accused for the commission of offences u/S 120-B, 420, 468 and 471 I.P.C. read with Section 12 of the Passport Act. The chargesheet has been accepted by the trial court and a summoning order has been issued asking the applicant to appear and face trial. The applicant, being aggrieved by the submission of the chargesheet and issuance of the summoning order, has filed the present application u/S 482 Cr.P.C. Heard Sri S.K. Agarwal, the learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Lokendra Dobhal and Sri Apurva Agarwal, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Arvind Vashist, the learned counsel assisted by Mrs. Monika Pant, the learned counsel for the C.B.I. The chargesheet runs into several pages but the upshot of the chargesheet is, that the applicant by committing forgery and deceit has obtained a passport from the Passport Office on the basis of forged and fictitious educational certificates issued from Sri Sampurna Nand Sanskrit University and Sri Radha Krishna Sanskrit College. It is also alleged that the certificates obtained from Sri Radha Krishna Sanskrit College was done in connivance with Sri Naresh Chand Dwivedi who was the Principal of that college and a co-accused. It is also alleged that the certificates obtained from Sri Radha Krishna Sanskrit College was done in connivance with Sri Naresh Chand Dwivedi who was the Principal of that college and a co-accused. The learned Senior Counsel for the applicant submitted that the chargesheet is nothing but a gross abuse of the process of law and that the entire sequence of events starting from the time when Swami Ramdev made a fast at the Ram Lila ground culminating to the submission of the chargesheet was done under duress at the behest of the ruling party at the Centre and, consequently, the entire exercise was malafide and, at the threshold, the chargesheet and all the proceedings initiated pursuant to it should be quashed. It was alleged that the complainant was a Congress Party worker and a close associate of the then Prime Minister, late Sri Rajeev Gandhi and, consequently, a clear nexus is proved beyond a unreasonable doubt regarding the investigation that was started at the behest of the ruling party at the Centre. The learned counsel submitted that even otherwise on a bare reading of the chargesheet, no offence of the charged sections against the applicant is made out. The learned Senior Counsel submitted that the entire chargesheet would indicate that there was no conspiracy against the applicant with any official of the Sampurna Nand Sanskrit University or with the co-accused and that the evidence so procured was only a letter of the Registrar of Sampurna Nand Sanskrit University which states that the certificates relied by the applicant was not issued by the University. The learned Senior Counsel submitted that in the absence of any conspiracy, no ingredients of Section 420 and 468 I.P.C. could be made out which relates to forgery and, consequently, the applicant should not be relegated to face a trial before the Court below unnecessarily and that this Court should exercise its inherent power u/S 482 Cr.P.C. and stay the proceedings before the trial court which is nothing but an abuse of the process of law. It was also urged in the end that in view of Section 6 of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946, the Central Bureau of Investigation has no power to investigate or lodge a chargesheet in the State of Uttarakhand without seeking permission from the State Government. It was also urged in the end that in view of Section 6 of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946, the Central Bureau of Investigation has no power to investigate or lodge a chargesheet in the State of Uttarakhand without seeking permission from the State Government. On the other hand, Sri Arvind Vashist, the learned counsel for the C.B.I. submitted that ample opportunity was given to the applicant to produce the original educational certificates which he failed to do so and contended that the original have been lost. It was also contended that the University has written a specific letter indicating that the marksheet/certificates issued by the University and, relied upon by the applicant, are fictitious documents. The learned counsel further submitted that the documents annexed by the applicant from the co-accused indicates that the said co-accused was distributing forged certificates of other colleges and institutions and that the chargesheet clearly indicates a tacit conspiracy between the two accused which justify charging Section 120-B of the I.P.C. The learned counsel for the C.B.I. further contended that the contention of the applicant that the investigation and the lodging of the chargesheet was based on malafide and that the investigation was done under duress was per se misconceived based on surmises and conjectures, and that, in any case, a document obtained from the internet does not prima-facie proves malafide for staying the trial. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties at some length, the Court finds that Section 6 of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act clearly indicates that the powers and jurisdiction exercised by the C.B.I. can only be done in a State only after getting consent from that State Government. In this regard, the learned counsel for the C.B.I. has produced a notification dated 18th January, 2001 issued u/S 6 of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act. A perusal of this notification indicates that offences punishable u/S 120-B, 420, 468 and 471 I.P.C. and under the Passport Act could be investigated against such persons other than public servants who are controlled by the State Government. In the light of this notification, the Court is of the opinion that the C.B.I. had the jurisdiction and the power to investigate and submit a chargesheet. In the light of this notification, the Court is of the opinion that the C.B.I. had the jurisdiction and the power to investigate and submit a chargesheet. With regard to the offences charged against the applicant, the Court finds that the basic charge is the submission of false documents, namely, educational certificates before the Passport authorities, on the basis of which, the applicant obtained a passport. Section 12 (1) (b) of the Passport Act clearly indicates that whoever knowingly furnishes any false information or suppresses any material information with a view to obtaining a passport or a travel document under the Passport Act, would be punishable with imprisonment. The chargesheet indicates that false/forged/fictitious documents were submitted by the applicant on the basis of which the Passport Office was deceived in the issuance of a passport in favour of the applicant. The applicant was required to furnish the original document which he had failed to do so till date. The investigation reveals that the University authorities have contended that no such certificates as relied by the applicant for the purpose of issuance of passport had been issued by the University. A prima-facie case of offence under Section 420 and other related Sections is made out read with Section 12 of the Passport Act. In so far as Section 120-B I.P.C. is concerned, the chargesheet indicates a conspiracy between the two co-accused. Evidence on that would be led and it is not possible for the Court to stall the proceedings only on an averment that there is no case of conspiracy. It is for the trial court to decide upon the evidence that would be led. The chargesheet as well as the list of documents and evidence filed prima-facie indicates that the Section of conspiracy was rightly invoked. The learned Senior Counsel for the applicant in support of his submission placed reliance upon a decision of the Supreme Court in Mohammed Ibrahim and others Vs. State of Bihar and another, (2009) 3 SCC (Cri) 929, wherein the Court considered the provision of Section 420, 467 and 471 I.P.C. The Supreme Court held that the term “forgery” under Section 470 and 463 I.P.C. indicates that whoever makes any false document with intent to cause damage or injury to the public or to any person or with intent to commit fraud, commits a forgery. The condition precedent u/S 467 and 471 I.P.C. is forgery, namely the forgery of making a false document. Section 464 of the I.P.C. contemplates obtaining the document by practising deception. A perusal of this Section would indicate that there is an intention of causing it to be believed that such a document was made or executed by some other persons, or by the authority genuinely. This deception as to what was procured and filed and whether it was a false document or a fictitious or a forged one is subject to the appreciation of the evidence before the trial court and which this Court cannot adjudicate at this stage but prima-facie the Court is of the opinion that the conduct of the applicant in not submitting the original certificates and, in view of the letters issued by the University, prima-facie indicates that the documents relied by the applicant are forged documents. Consequently, to constitute an offence u/S 420 I.P.C., there should not only be cheating, but as a consequence of such cheating, the accused prima-facie has dishonestly deceived the authority in the issuance of a passport. In the light of the aforesaid, the Court does not find any merit in this application. The Court is of the opinion that a prima-facie case is made out against the applicant and the trial court was justified in issuing the summoning order. The application being misconceived is dismissed summarily. Any observation made in this order will not influence the trial court nor can be relied upon. In the event, the applicant surrenders before the trial court and applies for bail, the Court will expeditiously dispose of the bail application in the light of the offences alleged in the chargesheet. _