ORAL JUDGMENT 1. This petition is filed to quash and set aside order dated 18-7-2012 passed by the learned 7th Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gandhinagar, in Criminal Inquiry No.8 of 2011 and also order dated 13-8-2012 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Gandhinagar, in Criminal Revision Application No.61 of 2012. 2. The present petitioner, original complainant-Ashwinkumar Motilal Parmar, who was serving in the cadre of Gujarat Forest Service Class I, lodged a complaint against respondent No.2 before the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Gandhinagar, for the offences punishable under Secs. 466, 468, 471 and 474 of the Indian Penal Code inter alia alleging that respondent No.2 accused participated in interpolation and fabrication of documents and by that he has drawn proceedings relating to Departmental Promotion Committee meeting in the office of Secretary to Government, Forest & Environment Department whereby name of Shri B.D.Chauhan, whose name was not mentioned in the record, was inserted in the process and by that illegal and unauthorised promotion has been given to Shri B.D.Chauhan. It was mainly alleged that respondent No.2 has drawn interpolated public documents and with negligent act and criminal intention committed an act and omission by interpolating the record and shown to be true record and proceedings for decision making process and though name of petitioner complainant was required to be considered for promotion, as alleged above, his name was not shown and instead, name of Shri B.D.Chauhan was shown and by that, criminal act is committed as above. 3. After verification of the complaint, the trial court has ordered to register the complaint and also passed order to carry out inquiry by Police Inspector, Sector 7 Police Station, Gandhinagar, under section 202 of Cr.P.C. The Police Officer, Sector 7 Police Station, submitted his report with the trial court. Thereupon the trial court after giving opportunity of hearing to the complainant and considering the written submissions submitted by the complainant and relevant documents dismissed the complaint by order dated 18-7-2012. Said order is challenged by way of preferring Criminal Revision Application No.61 of 2012. After giving opportunity of hearing and after perusing the record, the learned Sessions Court has dismissed the revision application. Hence, the present petition. 4. Heard learned advocate, Mr.D.A.Bambhania for the petitioner, Mr.Tushar Mehta, learned Addl. Advocate General for the respondent No.1 and learned advocate, Mr.C.H.Vora for the respondent No.2. 5. Rule. Mr.Tushar Mehta, learned Addl. After giving opportunity of hearing and after perusing the record, the learned Sessions Court has dismissed the revision application. Hence, the present petition. 4. Heard learned advocate, Mr.D.A.Bambhania for the petitioner, Mr.Tushar Mehta, learned Addl. Advocate General for the respondent No.1 and learned advocate, Mr.C.H.Vora for the respondent No.2. 5. Rule. Mr.Tushar Mehta, learned Addl. Advocate General for the respondent No.1 and Mr.C.H.Vora for the respondent No.2 waive service of notice of rule. 6. It is submitted by learned advocate, Mr.Bambhania for the petitioner that Police Officer has recorded statements of only four witnesses, however, Investigating Officer has neither verified nor examined the alleged tampered documents and had those tampered documents been verified or examined, it would have prima facie established the offences alleged and by that, trial court has committed error. He took this Court through letter dated 1-8-1998 written by Secretary, Gujarat State Public Service Commission, addressed to Additional Chief Secretary, Forest and Environment Department, Sachivalaya, Gandhinagar, and sum and substance of said letter is to the effect that why name of Shri B.D.Chauhan, who was neither qualified nor having requisite qualification, was mentioned in the selection list for promotion although present petitioner-original complainant, Shri A.M.Parmar, was senior to Shri B.D.Chauhan and, therefore, inquiry is to be made at higher level and it also narrated that name of Shri B.D.Chauhan is required to be deleted and order of promotion of Shri B.D.Chauhan is required to be cancelled with immediate effect. Through this letter, Gujarat State Public Service Commission also asked for information as to at which place name of present complainant appears. He also took this Court through letter dated 20-3-1999 written by Gujarat State Public Service Commission (GSPSC) where also it is stated that inquiry as to how name of Shri B.D.Chauhan was entered in the selection list has not been made since long and it was seriously noted by GSPSC. It was also narrated in the said letter that inserting the name of Shri B.D.Chauhan is a subject matter of inquiry, inspite of that, Government has not taken that seriously though Shri B.D.Chauhan was not having requisite experience or qualification and though his name was not required to be considered by the committee and keeping the selection committee in dark, wrong name was inserted in the selection list and senior officers (like the complainant) are kept away from the promotion. By this letter, Secretary, Gujarat State Public Service Commission, also asked to carry out inquiry and submit the report. He has vehemently argued that neither the Police Officers nor the courts below have considered the letters and did not call for any document from the documents for which reason, name of Shri B.D.Chauhan was inserted in the selection list and according to him, considering the averments made in both the letters, prima facie case is made out by the complainant. 7. It is submitted by Mr.Tushar Mehta, learned Addl. Advocate General with learned APP, Ms.Krina Calla for the respondent No.1 State that orders passed by both the courts below are legal and proper and all the exercise for promotion was undertaken as a routine procedure in the course of administrative function and the present petitioner has been promoted from the date on which he was found eligible and, therefore, no criminal liability could be fastened on the respondent No.2 accused. It is submitted that both the courts below after considering the police report, documents on record and written submissions of the present petitioner came to the conclusion that no offence is made out against the present respondent No.2 and when concurrent findings of two courts are there, considering the scope of this Court under Sec.482 of Cr.P.C., it is requested to dismiss the petition. 8. Learned advocate, Mr.C.H.Vora has adopted the arguments advanced by learned Addl. Advocate General, Mr.Tushar Mehta. 9. This Court has gone through judgment and order passed by the trial court as well as the Sessions Court in revision. This Court is satisfied that the trial court has verified the record and the documentary evidence on record and rightly came to the conclusion that during the administrative process, the exercise for promotion is carried out and Joint Selection Committee has considered the name as per the suggestion made by the Secretary. This fact has come out from the statement of Shri P.S.Shah, I.A.S.(retired) and Shri P.M.Christian, Joint Secretary. This fact has come out from the statement of Shri P.S.Shah, I.A.S.(retired) and Shri P.M.Christian, Joint Secretary. It was rightly held by the trial court that with ill-intention or dishonest intention, no action is carried out by the committee by placing the office note to favour somebody or any fraudulent document is created and by using it, favour has been done to any person is prima facie not found and, therefore, no offence is made out as nothing has come on record to show that fraud has been committed or any interpolation in the document has been committed. It was also rightly observed by the trial court that because of the court proceedings and the complications involved in considering the seniority, name has been mentioned in the selection list and, therefore, all the decisions were taken during the course of administrative process and in that, no element of criminal act has been disclosed and hence, this Court is of the opinion that no prima facie offence is made out. The Sessions Court has also discussed each and every aspect and rightly came to the conclusion that order passed by the learned J.M.F.C. Is legal and proper and is not required to be interfered with. 10. This Court is aware that only in rarest of the rare case when it is prima facie found that there is abuse of process of law or miscarriage of justice, the Court should interfere with the findings of the courts below and when there are concurrent findings of two courts, this Court does not like to use its power to interfere with the findings. 11. In view of the above, this petition is rejected. Rule is discharged.