JUDGMENT Hon’ble Ravindra Nath Mishra-II, J.—This petition seeks issuance of a writ in the nature of Certiorari quashing F.I.R./Crime No. 189 of 2015, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 323, 504, 506, 120-B I.P.C., Police Station Mahanagar, District Lucknow. 2. Gist of the issue raised by the petitioner is recorded in order dated 3.5.2016. The order reads as under : “1. This petition seeks issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing F.I.R./Crime No. 189 of 2015, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 323, 504, 506, 120-B I.P.C., Police Station Mahanagar, District Lucknow. 2. The impugned F.I.R. has been read in extenso in Court. Gist of the allegation is that the petitioner alongwith co accused, enabled forgery of a Will dated 6.1.2002 and benefit of that Will has been taken. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has pointed out that the charge-sheet has already been filed against co accused Mahmood Ali, husband of the petitioner. The petitioner is sought to be arrested. In the charge-sheet, however, the petitioner has not been depicted as absconding accused or that investigation in her regard is pending. 4. Issue notice to serve respondent No. 4 returnable on 11.7.2016. 5. List this case on 11.7.2016. 6. Arrest of the petitioner shall remain stayed till the next date of listing. Petitioner is directed to join investigation. 7. Investigating officer is directed to file his affidavit as to under what circumstances, the petitioner is being approached, although, investigation has been concluded and the petitioner has not been shown as absconding accused. 8. We are issuing notice only on the limited issue that the petitioner has not been shown as an absconding accused in the charge-sheet, yet is sought to be arrested.” 3. Charge-sheet bearing No. 02 of 2016 dated 14.2.2016 is available on record. As per the charge-sheet the only accused shown in the relevant column is Mehboob Ali. The column of absconding accused is vacant, thereby indicating that there is no other accused to be arrested or against whom investigation is pending. The gist of the investigation indicated on the front page of the charge-sheet also does not mention the petitioner as one of the accused. 4. After the above extracted order was passed, it appears that another charge-sheet has been prepared bearing No. 02A of 2016 dated 10.6.2016 in which the petitioner has been shown as the accused. 5. The gist of the investigation indicated on the front page of the charge-sheet also does not mention the petitioner as one of the accused. 4. After the above extracted order was passed, it appears that another charge-sheet has been prepared bearing No. 02A of 2016 dated 10.6.2016 in which the petitioner has been shown as the accused. 5. Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is explicit and details the information to be supplied to the Court in regard to the investigation conducted and concluded. Various columns of the Charge-sheet are provided in Form 339 provided under Regulation 122 of the U.P. Police Regulations. Form 339 appears to have been provided in context of provisions of Section 173 Cr.P.C. 6. The relevance of a charge-sheet and the information disclosed in the charge-sheet, for the accused, the victim/complainant as also the Court has been noticed in judgment dated 21.08.2015 rendered by this Court in Writ Petition No. 7590 (MB) of 2015: Madhuri Devi v. State of U.P. and others. The following has been held in this context:- “ 51. It needs to be mentioned that after completing investigation, the police officer is required to make a clear report in terms of provisions of S. 173 CrPC. The information required to be provided under sub Section (2) of S.173 CrPC should be specific in its content, with relevant basis for its conclusion. xxxxx 55. At the point in time when report under S.173 CrPC is prepared, the investigation is concluded. The investigating officer has collected sufficient evidence indicating commission of offence (S.170 CrPC). The investigating agency knows what evidence has been collected indicating culpability of particular accused, and what offence has been committed by that accused. The report must categorise the offence committed by a particular accused, and the basis for so concluding. The supporting evidence , viz. statements of the witnesses recorded under S. 161 Cr.P.C. and the evidence collected through scientific means is to be appended with the report. 56. It is the right of every accused to know as to on what basis he is being prosecuted, so that he can prepare his defence. The summary of investigation must make all aspects clear, in the interest of transparency, and effective and fair trial. 57. 56. It is the right of every accused to know as to on what basis he is being prosecuted, so that he can prepare his defence. The summary of investigation must make all aspects clear, in the interest of transparency, and effective and fair trial. 57. In case the report (charge-sheet) is prepared objectively, and summarised as observed herein above, it will assist the Court in considering the evidence in context of the ingredients of the offence(s) committed by an accused and frame Charge(s), as required by law. This shall ensure fair, effective and speedy trial. 58. Likewise when no evidence is found against some accused or evidence collected in the course of investigation indicates he is innocent, and that person/accused is not forwarded for trial, the report must clearly state the reasons for so concluding. This helps the Court to adjudicate, if an application is filed for proceeding against that person/accused. The Court can refer to the basis, and reasons recorded by the investigating agency and decide whether to summon the said person as additional accused. This comes to the aid of the Court while deciding application, if one is filed under Section 319 Cr.P.C also. This reduces the workload of the Court and avoids unnecessary litigation. xxxxxx 62. In the same context in case a closure report/final report is to be filed because there is not sufficient evidence or reasonable ground of suspicion to justify the forwarding of the accused to a Magistrate (S.169 CrPC), the investigating agency is required to file a reasoned report. The basis for saying that offence has not been committed must be stated. The relevant material must be placed on record. By doing this the credibility of the investigating agency is demonstrated, and the Court is guided by the reasons given by the agency, when the report is challenged. If the reasons for filing such final report are available on record, the complainant is also informed why the case initiated by him has been cancelled. If however the reasons are not given in such report, or conclusion is based on surmises and conjectures, the complainant is aggrieved and such reports are challenged by way of filing protest petitions.” 7. We are faced with a circumstance, wherein the petitioner was aware that in the charge-sheet (Annexure-7) she was not shown as an accused or absconding accused. If however the reasons are not given in such report, or conclusion is based on surmises and conjectures, the complainant is aggrieved and such reports are challenged by way of filing protest petitions.” 7. We are faced with a circumstance, wherein the petitioner was aware that in the charge-sheet (Annexure-7) she was not shown as an accused or absconding accused. The charge-sheet also did not disclose that investigation as regards the petitioner is pending. Under the Circumstances, the petitioner carried a genuine impression that she is not wanted or required in context of the criminal proceedings, at issue. Subsequently, however, the petitioner was sought to be arrested and therefore, she approached this Court. 8. The investigating officer, thereafter is stated to have undertaken further investigation. Affidavit dated 8.7.2016 sworn by Sri Devi Charan Gupta, Sub-Inspector, Police Station Mahanagar, District Lucknow indicates that even the petitioner has been found in association with her husband in committing the offence. It has been stated in concluding portion of the affidavit that on the basis of oral and documentary evidence even the petitioner is charge-sheeted vide charge-sheet bearing No. 02A of 2016 dated 10.6.2016 for commission of offence under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 323, 504, 506 and 120B I.P.C. The affidavit, however, does not explain the exact role played by the petitioner in commission of the offence. The affidavit also does not furnish any legal explanation as regards non-mentioning the name of the petitioner in the earlier charge-sheet (Annexure-7) dated 14.2.2016 bearing No. 2 of 2016 (supra). It has merely been said that name of the petitioner and other accused was not mentioned in the relevant column of the charge-sheet on account of “human error”. 9. Considering the peculiar facts of the case, vide order dated 11.7.2016, this Court directed the Circle Officer concerned to review the investigation and file his affidavit, particularly in regard to the alleged role played by the petitioner. The order reads as under: “1. Short counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of investigating agency, in Court, which is taken on record. It has been stated that charge-sheet has been prepared. 2. The query raised vide order dated 3.5.2016, however, has not been answered. 3. Let the Circle Officer incharge of the concerned Police Station review the investigation and file his affidavit particularly in regard to the alleged role played by the petitioner. It has been stated that charge-sheet has been prepared. 2. The query raised vide order dated 3.5.2016, however, has not been answered. 3. Let the Circle Officer incharge of the concerned Police Station review the investigation and file his affidavit particularly in regard to the alleged role played by the petitioner. Specific evidence indicating culpability of the petitioner would be brought on record, in case any evidence is found. 4. An explanation would be furnished to the Court as to under what circumstances, while charge-sheet had been prepared not indicating pending investigation, under what circumstances at the present point in time, the petitioner is being harassed. 5. List this case on 11.8.2016. 6. Interim direction to continue till the next date of listing. “ (emphasised by us) 10. Short counter-affidavit dated 11.8.2016 sworn by Sri Vishal Vikram Singh, Circle Officer, Mahanagar, District Lucknow has been filed in Court, which is taken on record. In the affidavit it has been stated that the petitioner is wife of Mehboob Ali Son of Late Ramjan Ali @ Paacho, resident of House No. 529/231, Rahim Nagar, Mahanagar, Lucknow. The Nikahnama and Marriage Card of the petitioner have been enclosed with the affidavit. 11. The evidence collected in the course of investigation, as per affidavit, indicates that Mehboob Ali is a relative of Nadir Ali, resident of House No. 529/225, Rahim Nagar, Mahanagar, District Lucknow. Nadir Ali apparently had no children. After death of Nadir Ali, Mehboob Ali got forged identity cards wrongly showing himself as son of Nadir Ali, also while mentioning his residence address as that of Nadir Ali with the intention to take unlawful possession of the property of Nadir Ali. As against the petitioner it has been alleged that the petitioner had knowledge of the facts and she got prepared Voter Identity Card, Ration Card and Aadhaar Card showing herself to be resident of House No. 529/225, Rahim Nagar, Mahanagar, Lucknow, which earlier belonged to Nadir Ali. Only on the strength of the said evidence, it has been concluded that the petitioner was in association with her husband Mehboob and has committed offences under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 323, 504, 506 & 120B I.P.C. 12. Considering the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, it becomes evident that investigation was concluded on 14.2.2016 and charge-sheet bearing No. 02 of 2016 was prepared and finalized. Considering the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, it becomes evident that investigation was concluded on 14.2.2016 and charge-sheet bearing No. 02 of 2016 was prepared and finalized. There is not a whisper in the charge-sheet that the petitioner is an accused or an absconding accused. It is only subsequently in abuse of authority vested in the investigating officer that the petitioner was proceeded against. At this juncture, story developed by the investigating officer is to the effect that the petitioner was in conspiracy with her husband and therefore has shown her address as House No. 529/225, Rahim Nagar, Mahanagar, Lucknow, which earlier was the address of Nadir Ali. 13. Even if the allegations made in the F.I.R. and the entire investigation conducted till date is accepted in its entirety, we are of the considered opinion that the petitioner has not committed any offence. The ingredients of committing offence are not satisfied, as against the petitioner, in so much as it is the husband of the petitioner who allegedly forged his identity so as to allegedly incorporate and change his address as House No. 529/225, Rahim Nagar, Mahanagar, Lucknow. The petitioner, admittedly had no role to play in the said incident of changing the address of Mehboob Ali. The petitioner being the wife of Mehboob Ali obviously was living with Mehboob Ali and, therefore, was required to reflect the same address as that of her husband. In such circumstances, it cannot be said that the petitioner has committed offence of cheating as defined under Section 415 I.P.C. read with Section 420 I.P.C. 14. So far as the provision of Section 467, 468 and 471 I.P.C. are concerned, it is not even the case of the prosecution that the petitioner indulged in forgery of any document, as defined under Section 463 I.P.C. read with Section 464 I.P.C.. The case of the investigating agency is that Mehboob Ali so as to usurp the property of Nadir Ali, took advantage of Nadir Ali being issue-less and therefore, changed his identity while showing his own address as that of Nadir Ali. Only the residential address has been changed. In such circumstances, by any stretch of imagination, it cannot be concluded that the petitioner has indulged in forgery of any document. Only the residential address has been changed. In such circumstances, by any stretch of imagination, it cannot be concluded that the petitioner has indulged in forgery of any document. In such facts and circumstances it is evident that provisions of Sections 467, 468 & 471 I.P.C. are not attracted vis-a-vis the petitioner. 15. So far as offences under Sections 323, 504 & 506 I.P.C. are concerned, there is no such allegation against the petitioner of which legal notice ought to be taken. 16. In view of the above considerations and discussion, we are of the view that continuance of proceedings against the petitioner are not warranted by law. The ingredients of the alleged offences are not satisfied. So as to secure ends of justice and so as to prevent abuse of process of the law, the petition against the petitioner deserves to be allowed. 17. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, we hereby allow the petition only vis-a-vis the petitioner (Smt. Nisha Khatoon). The impugned FIR bearing Case Crime No. 189 of 2015, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 323, 504, 506, 120-B I.P.C., Police Station Mahanagar, District Lucknow, a copy of which is contained in Annexure-1 to the petition, so far as it relates to the petitioner, is hereby quashed. 18. Before parting with the order, we must record that we are receiving a number of cases in which charge-sheet is filed. In the column of absconding accused none is shown. In the narration of facts in the charge-sheet it is not mentioned that investigation against a particular accused is pending. Subsequently, however, on the whims of the police officials proceedings are initiated against certain persons who are aliens to the charge-sheet. When explanation is sought by the Court, a lame excuse is given by the police officials that on account of ‘human error’, the relevant column in the charge-sheet vis-a-vis the absconding accused was not filled. 19. Investigation is conducted by a police officer in discharge of his statutory duty. The statute vis. provision of Section 173 Cr.P.C. and Form 339 provided under Regulation 122 of the U.P. Police Regulations details the columns to be filled by the investigating officer. The investigation report thereafter is required to be checked by the Circle Officer. 19. Investigation is conducted by a police officer in discharge of his statutory duty. The statute vis. provision of Section 173 Cr.P.C. and Form 339 provided under Regulation 122 of the U.P. Police Regulations details the columns to be filled by the investigating officer. The investigation report thereafter is required to be checked by the Circle Officer. Such lapses, as has been noticed in this case, clearly indicate misconduct on the part of, not only the investigating officer, but also the Circle Officer who has approved the charge-sheet. Such infirmities in the charge-sheet cannot be ignored while accepting ‘human error’ theory because they adversely affect the person who is subjected to investigation at any subsequent time, as the investigating officer chooses. Such infirmities also affect administration of criminal justice. 20. All the Superintendents of Police are required to take serious note of the law, as detailed in this judgment, and ensure that the investigating officers do not pick & choose the accused on their whims after charge-sheet is filed. We have come across cases in which even after months investigation was opened against certain persons without there being any indication that investigation is even pending against them. 21. Such conduct on the part of the investigating agency also confuses the Court. The Court accepts the charge-sheet and proceeds with trial on the premise that investigation is not pending. Subsequently, however, while trial is going on, some more accused are forwarded, in context of whom a second trial is required to take place in regard to the same incident. 22. Such conduct on the part of the investigating officers also causes trauma to the accused, who are subsequently confronted with the investigation. By such conduct, the investigation is kept in limbo which adversely affects administration of justice. Such practice on the part of investigating agency is deprecated and the police agencies are required to ensure that such practice is stopped altogether. In case such cases are found/detected, the police officer/official should be proceeded against with charge of misconduct of serious nature. 23. In the case in hand, we find that charge-sheet dated 14th February, 2016 was filed against Mahboob Ali. When the petitioner was proceeded against, the petitioner approached this Court. It is only thereafter that in June 2016 i.e. after 4 months it is proposed that the petitioner is also an accused. 23. In the case in hand, we find that charge-sheet dated 14th February, 2016 was filed against Mahboob Ali. When the petitioner was proceeded against, the petitioner approached this Court. It is only thereafter that in June 2016 i.e. after 4 months it is proposed that the petitioner is also an accused. Charge-sheet dated 14th February, 2016, as noticed above, did not indicate at all that the petitioner is also an accused against whom investigation is pending. The trauma to which the petitioner has been subjected by the conduct of the investigating officer cannot be ignored by the writ-Court while accepting his explanation of ‘human error’. 24. Under the circumstances, we hereby impose costs in the sum of Rs. 15,000/- (Rupees Fifteen thousand) to be paid to the petitioner on or before 24th November, 2016. For the said purpose, an inquiry be ordered by the Senior Superintendent of Police, Lucknow so as to fix responsibility of the person from whose salary the cost amount would be deducted and paid to the petitioner. 25. Let a copy of this order be forwarded to the Director General of Police, U.P., Lucknow so that appropriate directions are issued and misleading charge-sheets are not filed in future.