ORDER 1. This petition under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure Code (in brief “Code”) has been preferred for quashing the FIR registered at Crime No.24/2011, under sections 420, 465, 466, 471 and 474 of the IPC at Police Station, Madhav Nagar, Ujjain. 2. Brief facts giving rise to this petition are that respondent No.9/complainant has lodged a written complaint against the petitioner alleging that the petitioner Dr. Sunanda Bharadwaj (Yadav) is posted as lecturer in Vikram University Ujjain got prepared forged caste certificate of backward class and file the same in various departments. Matter was enquired by SDM, Ujjain, during investigation it was found that the aforesaid caste certificate has not been issued by the Govt. or any other Department. Hence, he prayed for taking the action against petitioner. On the basis of this complaint Crime No.24/2011 has been registered under sections 420, 465, 466, 467, 468, 471, 472, 473, 474, 475, 488 and 120B of the IPC at Police Station Madhav Nagar, Ujjain against petitioner. Being aggrieved with this the petitioner has preferred this petition. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has not taken any benefit of the reservation provided for backward classes on the basis of the caste certificate. A State Level Caste Scruitiny Committee has enquired into the matter and found that petitioner has not utilised the caste certificate. She has applied for unreserved category. It is further stated that only State Level Caste Scrutiny Committee has power to declare the social status and verify the validity of the certificate. Police has no jurisdiction to investigate the matter. Respondents No.6 to 8 with the connivance of respondent No.9 has malafidely registered the complaint against petitioner. [Reliance has been placed in the matter of Sharda Nimje v. Government of India and others, reported in 2014(1)JLJ 333, Netram and others v. Kaushalendra Singh and another, reported in 2015(2) ANJ (M.P.) 365, Vikas v. State of M.P., reported in 2002(II) MPWN 98 , Malkit Singh v. State of M.P. and others, reported in 2011(I) MPWN 18 ]. Prosecution of the petitioner amounts to abuse of process of Court. Hence, prayed that FIR and proceeding, if charge-sheet has been filed, be quashed. 4. Prosecution of the petitioner amounts to abuse of process of Court. Hence, prayed that FIR and proceeding, if charge-sheet has been filed, be quashed. 4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent submitted that after enquiry by caste scrutiny committee it has been found that petitioner has procured false certificate, she further submits that after investigation charge-sheet has been filed, therefore, proceeding cannot be quashed. 5. I have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. In the complaint lodged by respondent No.9, it has been alleged that petitioner has procured forged certificate of backward class and produced the same in different departments. SDM, has enquired into the matter and found that certificate is forged. From perusal of the photostate copy of the caste certificate it is evident that this caste certificate has been procured claiming to be Yadav Caste. As per the report submitted by the SDM to Collector vide letter No.783/steno/2010 Ujjain dated 23.2.2010, it has been reported that the aforesaid certificate has not been issued from the office of additional Tahsildar. The report of the Tahsildar has also been filed wherein it has been mentioned that the certificate has not been issued from his office. From the copy of the report submitted by High Level Caste Scrutiny Committee it appears that the finding has been recorded as under :- ^^fu"d"kZ %& MkW- lquUnk Hkkj}kt dyDVj] mTtSu }kjk lfefr ds le{k izLrqr dFku o nLrkostksa ls Li"V gksrk gS fd MkW- lquUnk Hkkj}kt }kjk =qfVo'k vius ifr ds vk/kkj ij ;kno fiNM+k oxZ dk izek.ki= izkIr fd;k FkkA bl izek.ki= dk mi;ksx muds }kjk dgha Hkh ugha fd;k x;k gSA** 6. From the aforesaid, it is crystal clear that petitioner has procured the backward caste certificate. As noticed above, certificate of backward class has not been issued by Additional Tahsildar. 7. From perusal of Annexure A/8 it is evident that petitioner has procured the backward caste certificate No.4081 dated 25.8.1999. 8. From perusal of Annexure A-15 it appears that vide order dated 30.10.2015 charges under sections 420, 465, 466, 467, 469, 471, 474 and 201 of the IPC has been framed against the petitioner. 9. 7. From perusal of Annexure A/8 it is evident that petitioner has procured the backward caste certificate No.4081 dated 25.8.1999. 8. From perusal of Annexure A-15 it appears that vide order dated 30.10.2015 charges under sections 420, 465, 466, 467, 469, 471, 474 and 201 of the IPC has been framed against the petitioner. 9. In R. Kalyani v. Janak C. Mehta and others, reported in (2009)1 SCC 516 , the Hon'ble apex Court after examining the catena of cases laid down following propositions of law with regard to exercise of extraordinary powers under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure :- “15. Propositions of law which emerge from the said decisions are : (1) The High Court ordinarily would not exercise its inherent jurisdiction to quash a criminal proceeding and, in particular, a first information report unless the allegations contained therein, even if given face value and taken to be correct in their entirety, disclosed no cognizable offence. (2) For the said purpose the Court, save and except in very exceptional circumstances, would not look to any document relied upon by the defence. (3) Such a power should be exercised very sparingly. If the allegations made in the FIR disclose commission of an offence, the Court shall not go beyond the same and pass an order in favour of the accused to hold absence of any mens rea or actus reus. (4) If the allegation discloses a civil dispute, the same by itself may not be a ground to hold that the criminal proceedings should not be allowed to continue.” 10. The Hon'ble apex Court in the matter of State of Bihar and another v. P.P. Sharma and another, reported in 1992 Supp. (1) SCC 222, has observed in para 33 as under :- “We are of the considered view that at a stage when the police report under section 173 of CrPC has been forwarded to the Magistrate after completion of the investigation and the material collected by the Investigating Officer is under the gaze of judicial scrutiny, the High Court would do well to discipline itself not to undertake quashing proceedings at the stage in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction.” 11. In R.P. Kapur v. State of Punjab, reported in AIR 1960 SC 866 , M.L. Sethi has lodged FIR against R.P. Kapur alleging that he and his mother-in-law has committed offences under sections 420/109, 114 and 120B of IPC, R.P. Kapur moved the Punjab High Court under section 561A of CrPC for quashing the proceedings initiated by the FIR. When the petition of R.P. Kapur was pending in the High Court, the police report was submitted under section 173 CrPC and the High Court held that no case had been made out for quashing the proceedings under section 561A of CrPC and dismissed the petition. R.P. Kapur carried an appeal by way of special leave to apex Court while dismissing the appeal apex Court observed as under :- “6. ..... In the present case the Magistrate before whom the police report has been filed under section 173 of the Code has yet not applied his mind to the merits of the said report and it may be assumed in favour of the appellant that his request for the quashing of the proceedings is not at the present stage covered by any specific provision of the code. It is well established that the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court can be exercised to quash proceedings in a proper case either to prevent the abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. Ordinarily criminal proceedings instituted against an accused person must be tried under the provisions of the Code, and the High Court would be reluctant to interfere with the said proceedings at an interlocutory stage.” 12. Recently, in the matter of Dharmatma Singh v. Harminder Singh and others, reported in (2011)6 SCC 102 , the aforesaid view has been reiterated. Taking into consideration that petitioner herself stated that she has procured the caste certificate and the State Level Caste Scrutiny Committee has also found that petitioner procured the caste certificate. On enquiry it has been found that caste certificate has not been issued by the competent authority. After due investigation charge-sheet has been filed and charges has also been framed. Taking into consideration that petitioner herself stated that she has procured the caste certificate and the State Level Caste Scrutiny Committee has also found that petitioner procured the caste certificate. On enquiry it has been found that caste certificate has not been issued by the competent authority. After due investigation charge-sheet has been filed and charges has also been framed. Hence, in the light of the judgments passed in the case of R. Kalyani v. Janak C. Mehta and others (supra), State of Bihar and another v. P.P. Sharma and another, (supra), R. P. Kapur v. State of Punjab (supra) and Dharmatma Singh v. Harminder Singh and others (supra), in the opinion of this Court, no case is made out for exercising the power conferred under section 482 of the CrPC. The case law relied on by the petitioner are of no help. In the light of the above discussion, this petition is devoid of any merits and deserves to be dismissed. Consequently, this petition (Miscellaneous Criminal Case No.7716/2015 ) stands dismissed.