JUDGMENT : G.S. AHLUWALIA, J. 1. This application has been filed under section 482 of Cr.P.C. 1973 for quashing the order dated 27.8.2016 passed by 2nd A.S.J. Gwalior in Criminal Revision No. 278/2016, by which the order dated 14.6.2016 passed by J.M.F.C. Gwalior in Criminal Case No. 12732/2015 has been affirmed. 2. The applicant who is facing trial for offence under Section 171 of I.P.C. filed an application under section 239 of Cr.P.C. 1973 for discharge. The said application was rejected by the Magistrate by order dated 14.7.2016, holding that since, the offence under question is to be tried as a Summons Case, therefore, there is no provision for discharge of accused. 3. Being aggrieved by the order of the Magistrate, the applicant filed a criminal revision which too has suffered dismissal by order dated 27.8.2016. 4. It is submitted by the applicant that the Courts below have wrongly rejected the application filed by the applicant on the ground that the provisions of section 239 of Cr.P.C. 1973 do not apply as the present case is a summons case. It is submitted by the Counsel for the applicant that it is true that the present case has to be tried as summons case and the provisions of section 239 of Cr.P.C. 1973 would not apply, but the Trial Court has jurisdiction to stop the proceedings under section 258 of Cr.P.C. 1973 and therefore, the Courts below should have considered the application under section 258 of Cr.P.C. 1973 as it is well established principle of law that a wrong nomenclature/or wrong mentioning of provision in application should not be a ground to reject the application. It is further submitted that even otherwise, on the merits also, no case is made out against the applicant. However, the Counsel for the applicant could not clarify that whether the substance of accusation as required under section 251 of Cr.P.C. 1973 have been stated by the Magistrate or not. 5. Per Contra, it is submitted by the Counsel for the respondent that the applicant is working on the post of Security Officer, Tripple ITM, M.V.B. College, Gwalior and no uniform is prescribed for the said post but even then the applicant was wearing the police uniform with three stars on his shoulders without a ribbon which is equivalent to the post of Dy. S.P. He also used to carry his revolver. S.P. He also used to carry his revolver. When the investigating officer asked for any order by which the applicant has been authorized to wear the uniform having the resemblance with the uniform of Dy. S.P. then no order could be produced before the investigating officer. Even the applicant has not filed any such order along with the application. Thus, by wearing the police uniform with three stars on his shoulders without ribbon, clearly shows that the applicant was wearing the uniform of a Dy. S.P. with an intention that it may be believed, or with the knowledge that it is likely to be believed that he is Dy. S.P. in the police department. 6. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties. 7. Before adverting to the facts of the case, it would be appropriate to refer to Section 171 of I.P.C. which reads as under: “171. Wearing garb or carrying token used by public servant with fraudulent intent - Whoever, not belonging to a certain class of public servants, wears any garb or carries any token resembling any garb or token used by that class of public servants, with the intention that it may be believed, or with the knowledge that it is likely to be believed, that he belongs to that class of public servants, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description, for a term which may extend to three months, or with fine which may extend to two hundred rupees, or with both.” 8. The applicant has filed a copy of the charge sheet along with the application. From the charge sheet it appears that one Saket Sahu, made a complaint that the applicant is working on the post of Security officer in Tripple ITM, but he is wearing the police uniform, Token etc with an intention and knowledge that it may be believed by the General Public that he belongs to police cadre and it was further alleged that the applicant has license of revolver issued by D.M. Kanpur which is not valid in State of Madhya Pradesh. 9. 9. It is clear from the documents filed along with the application that several letters were written by S.H.O. Police Station Hazira to Director, Tripple ITM, Gwalior requiring him to clarify that under what Rule, the applicant is wearing the police uniform, Star, P Cap, Red Belt and Red Shoes and from which date the Uniform allowance or arm allowance is being given to the applicant. The coloured photograph of functions of 15 August and 26 January were also called as well as the legible copy of arms license was called. The letter dated 11.9.2015 is being reproduced here by way of sample copy which reads as under: ^^dk;kZy; Fkkuk gthjk ftyk Xokfy;j eŒizŒ Øekad&1953215 fnukad 11-09-2015 izfr] funs'kd egksn;] fVªiy vkbZVh,e ,Œ OghŒ chŒ dkWyst ftyk Xokfy;jA fo"k;%& lqj{kk vf/kdkjh fnus'k dqekj f}osnh ds laca/k esa tkudkjh pkgus ckor~A egksn;] mijksDr fo"k;kUrxZr ys[k gS fd lqj{kk vf/kdkjh fnus'k dqekj f}osnh fVªiy vkbZVh,e ,Œ OghŒ chŒ dkWyst Xokfy;j ds fo:) ladsr lkgw vkjVhvkbZ dk;ZdrkZ ds }kjk [kkdh onhZ] LVkj] ih dsi iguuk ,oa voS/k :i ls fiLVy j[kus dh f'kdk;r Fkkuk gthjk esa dh gS bl laca/k esa lqj{kk vf/kdkjh fnus'k dqekj f}osnh fVªiy vkbZVh,e ,Œ OghŒ chŒ dkWyst Xokfy;j dh fuEufyf[kr tkudkjh iznku djus dk d"V djsaA ¼1½ Mªsl dksM fdl fu;e ds rgr dh dkWihA ¼2½ vkElZ ,ykmUl] fdV ,ykmUl ,ao ;wuhQkeZ ,ykmUl fdl fnu fnuakd ls fn;k tk jgk gSA ¼3½ Xokfy;j ftys esa lqj{kk vf/kdkjh }kjk vkElZ dc yk;k x;k ,oa blls igys vkElZ dgk ij Fkk vkfn dh tkudkjhA ¼4½ jaxhu QksVksxzkQ 15-08-2010] 26-01-2011] 15-08-2011 ftuesa lqj{kk vf/kfu;e 'kkfey gSA iznku djsaA lHkh izi= lfVZQkbV iznku djus dh d`ik djsa vkils iwoZ esa Hkh fuEu fcanqvksa ij tkudkjh pkgh x;h Fkh tks vkt fnukad rd vkidh vkSj ls vizkIr gSa blls Li"V gksrk gS fd vki tkudkjh dks Nqikuk pkgrs gS ;k nsuk ugha pkgrs gSA vr% iqu% vkidks lwfpr fd;k tkrk gS fd vki 'kh?kz tkudkjh nsus dk d"V djsaA Fkkuk izHkkjh Fkkuk gthjk ftyk Xokfy;jA** 10. Another reminder dated 24.9.2015 was sent which was received in the office of Director Secretariat Tripple ITM, Gwalior in which it was specifically mentioned that clear reply is not being given and evasive replies are being given. Another reminder dated 24.9.2015 was sent which was received in the office of Director Secretariat Tripple ITM, Gwalior in which it was specifically mentioned that clear reply is not being given and evasive replies are being given. The reminder dated 24.9.2015 reads as under: ^^dk;kZy; Fkkuk gthjk ftyk Xokfy;j eŒizŒ Øekad&9@15 fnuakd 24-09-2015 izfr] funs'kd egksn;] fVªiy vkbZVh,e ,Œ OghŒ chŒ dkWyst ftyk Xokfy;jA fo"k;%& lqj{kk vf/kdkjh fnus'k dqekj f}osnh ds laca/k esa tkudkjh pkgus ckor~A egksn;] mijksDr fo"k;kUrxZr ys[k gS fd lqj{kk vf/kdkjh fnus'k dqekj f}osnh fVªiy vkbZVh,e ,Œ OghŒ chŒ dkWyst Xokfy;j ds fo:) ladsr lkgw vkjVhvkbZ dk;ZdrkZ ds }kjk [kkdh onhZ] LVkj] ih dsi iguuk ,ao voS/k :i ls fiLVy j[kus dh f'kdk;r Fkkuk gthjk esa dh gS bl laca/k esa lqj{kk vf/kdkjh fnus'k dqekj f}osnh fVªiy vkbZVh,e ,Œ OghŒ chŒ dkWyst Xokfy;j dh fuEufyf[kr tkudkjh pkgh x;h Fkh lqj{kk vf/kdkjh fnus'k dqekj f}osnh tks fd iqfyl vf/kdkjh u gksrs gq;s Hkh iqfyl ln`'; onhZ /kkj.k djrk gS ftlls yksxksa dks iqfyl vf/kdkjh gksuk izrhr gksrk gSA bl laca/k esa vkidh vkSj ls fo"k; ls gVdj tkudkjh dks ?kqek fQjk dj viw.kZ :i ls fn;k x;k gSA vr% vkidks lwfpr fd;k tkrk gS fd lqj{kk vf/kdkjh fnus'k dqekj f}osnh }kjk [kkdh onhZ] LVkj] ih dsi] jsM+ csYV] jsM+ lwt vkfn fdl fu;e ds rgr /kkj.k djrk gSA bl laca/k esa viuk vfHker iw.kZ tkudkjh fu;e dh dkWih lfgr 01 fnol ds vUnj 'kh?kz iznku djsaA vU;Fkk vkids fo:) /kkjk 176 rkfgŒ ds rgr oS/kkfud dk;Zokgh dh tk;sxhA Fkkuk izHkkjh Fkkuk gthjk ftyk Xokfy;jA izfrfyfi%& jftLVªkj ,ŒchŒihŒ fVªiy vkbZVh,e dkyst Xokfy;j dh vkSj lwpukFkZA Fkkuk izHkkjh Fkkuk gthjk ftyk Xokfy;jA** 11. It is not out of place to mention here that all the letters sent by the Police Station Hazira, District Gwalior were replied by the applicant. One of the reply dated 7.9.2015 sent by the applicant on behalf of IIITM is reproduced as under: “To, Officer-in-Charge Police Station Hazira District Gwalior M.P. Sub: Information In Respect of D.K. Dwivedi Security Officer of the Institute. Kindly refer your letter No. 1953/15 dated-nil and received on 28 August 15 and Reminder No. 1 dated 01.09.15. Undersigned has replied your letter on 28 Aug with all desired documents (four enclosures.) once again reply is submitted for your following 5 points:- 1. ABV-IIITM Gwalior is an autonomous institute of govt. Kindly refer your letter No. 1953/15 dated-nil and received on 28 August 15 and Reminder No. 1 dated 01.09.15. Undersigned has replied your letter on 28 Aug with all desired documents (four enclosures.) once again reply is submitted for your following 5 points:- 1. ABV-IIITM Gwalior is an autonomous institute of govt. of India and the Director is the competent authority for my uniform. 2. Information in respect of allowances paid by the institute can be obtained from the institute A/C sec. 3 and 4. Personal information can not be provided under section 8(1) (i) of the RTI Act 2005. 5. A copy of arms license has been submitted to you on 28.08.15 and original you can see any time in my office. Further you are requested to provide a copy of the complaint for further necessary action please. Thanking you. D.K. Dwivedi Security Officer CC to (for information) 1. Director. 2. Registrar. 3. Dy. Registrar (F&A).” 12. Thus, in reply to the specific query raised by the investigating officer that under what Rule, the applicant was wearing the uniform, star, P. Cap, Red Belt and Red Shoes, it was replied by the applicant that 1-ABV-IIITM Gwalior is an autonomous institute of Govt. of India and the Director is the competent authority for my uniform. 13. Another letter dated 9.9.2015 was sent by the applicant mentioning that if the RTI activist has some problem then he must approach the appellate authority of the institution or CIC of India and some senior police officer may be deputed to enquire into the fake complaint. The reply dated 9.9.2015 reads as under: “To, The Superintendent of Police District Gwalior M.P. Sub: Information in Respect of D.K. Dwivedi Security Officer of the Institute. Dear Sir, Kindly refer our telecom of today, and enclosed correspondence between institute and addl. Sp, CSP Maharajpura and T. I. Hazira from S. No. 1 to 12. Undersigned has instructed to security provider of the institute and they have reported to Addl. Sp. and CSP M. Pura office respectively. The T.I. Hazira has been intimated twice that ABV-IIITM Gwalior is an autonomous institute of govt. of India and the Director is the competent to make the rules for the administration under (ii) and (iii) Act. Information in respect of allowances paid by the institute can be obtained from the institute PIO through RTI application by any person. The T.I. Hazira has been intimated twice that ABV-IIITM Gwalior is an autonomous institute of govt. of India and the Director is the competent to make the rules for the administration under (ii) and (iii) Act. Information in respect of allowances paid by the institute can be obtained from the institute PIO through RTI application by any person. Personal information cannot be provided under section 8(1) (i) of the RTI Act 2005. Still T.I. Hazira is sending reminders to the Director for the same information repeatedly without providing a copy of the complaint made by Mr. Sanket Sahoo. If RTI worker has some problem then he must approach to appellate authority of the institute or CIC of India. Therefore, you are requested to detail some senior police officer to look into the matter and take necessary action in respect of fake complaints made against institute officers. With kind regards, Encls as stated. Dated: 9.9.2015 D.K. Dwivedi Security Officer CC to (for information.) 1. Director. 2. Registrar. 3. DY. Registrar (F&A). 4. T.I. Hazira (Gwalior).” 14. When the investigating officer insisted for the specific reply, then again a vague reply was sent on 24-9-2015 which reads as under: “ABV-IIITMG/Dir./15/752 Dated: 24.9.2015 To, The Officer-in-Charge Police Station Hazira Gwalior (MP) Sub: Information related to Mr. D.K. Dwivedi, Security Officer. Dear Sir, This is with reference to your letter dated 24.09.2015 regarding information related to Mr. D.K. Dwivedi, Security Officer, ABV-IIITM Gwalior. Mr. D.K. Dwivedi had requested for permission vide application dated 05.07.2010 regarding wearing uniform and related accessories. The request was made on the basis of such practice being followed in other similar Institute viz. IIT Kanpur, IIT Delhi etc. ABVIIITM Gwalior is an autonomous Institute under the Ministry of Human Resources and Development, Government of India and is a Deemed University under UGC Act 1956 (copy of certificate is attached). The request was considered by the Institute and he was permitted to wear a uniform corresponding to the stature of Security Officer. However, in view of the observations made by Police Authority an internal committee has been constituted to look into the matter and submit a report. Meanwhile Mr. D.K. Dwivedi has been advised to discontinue the use of uniform till further orders. Thanking you, With warm regards (S.G. Deshmukh) CC to the Superintendent of Police, Gwalior, City Centre Gwalior (MP) The Registrar, ABV-IITM Gwalior.” 15. Meanwhile Mr. D.K. Dwivedi has been advised to discontinue the use of uniform till further orders. Thanking you, With warm regards (S.G. Deshmukh) CC to the Superintendent of Police, Gwalior, City Centre Gwalior (MP) The Registrar, ABV-IITM Gwalior.” 15. Again in this reply also, the IIITM Gwalior did not clarify that whether any Uniform has been provided for the post of Prescribed Security Officer or not? A vague reply was given that the applicant was permitted to wear a uniform corresponding to the stature of Security Officer. But by what order, the applicant was permitted to wear uniform was again not disclosed by the institute. Even no order has been placed on record. Thus, it is clear that in fact no separate order has been passed by the Director nor any Rule prescribes any Uniform for the post of Security Officer of IIITM Gwalior. This fact further finds corroboration that when the institute found it difficult to answer the queries raised by the investigating officer, then it ultimately directed the applicant not to wear the uniform which is evident from letter dated 24.9.2015. Thus, it is clear that the applicant was wearing the uniform of a police officer with three stars on his shoulders without a ribbon, with P Cap, Red Belt and Red Shoes without any authority. 16. So far as the question of issuance of license by the competent authority, Kanpur is concerned, the copy of the license is on the record and it appears that by order dated 5.7.2014 the validity of the arm license was extended to Delhi and Madhya Pradesh also. However, in the license also, the photograph of the applicant in the police uniform is affixed. It is not known that whether the applicant was earlier working in the police department or not, but from the license it appears that the applicant was working on the post of Assistant Security Officer, IIT Kanpur. As the Trial is still pending then, it is for the Trial Court to adjudicate that whether the applicant at any point of time was ever authorized to wear a uniform which is meant for police officer or not? Therefore, this Court at this stage is refraining itself from giving any findings in the matter. 17. As the Trial is still pending then, it is for the Trial Court to adjudicate that whether the applicant at any point of time was ever authorized to wear a uniform which is meant for police officer or not? Therefore, this Court at this stage is refraining itself from giving any findings in the matter. 17. However, the crux of the matter is that neither the institute nor the applicant could produce any document to show that the applicant was ever permitted to wear the uniform which is synonymous to the uniform of Dy. S.P. or any uniform is prescribed under the rules. 18. The investigating officer has recorded the statements of the witnesses, who have specifically stated that the applicant used to wear the police uniform with three stars without a ribbon, red belt, red shoes and P cap. Even the photograph of the applicant are also on record in which the applicant is visible in the uniform like that of Dy. S.P. working in the police department. 19. Now, the question is that whether by wearing the uniform which is prescribed for the post of Dy. S.P. the applicant has committed an offence under Section 171 of I.P.C. or not? 20. By relying upon the judgment of Punjab and Haryana High Court passed in the case of Ajitinder Singh vs. State of Punjab, 2000 Cri. L.J. 1827 and K.S. Premachandra Kurup vs. State of Kerala, 2013 Cri. L.J. 1465, it is submitted by the Counsel for the applicant that even if the entire allegations are accepted, it cannot be said that the applicant had personated himself as a public servant. So far as the case of K.S. Premachandra Kurup (Supra) and Ajitinder Singh (Supra) are concerned, the facts are different and therefore, they are not applicable to the facts of the present case. 21. In the present case, the applicant has failed to show that under what authority he was wearing the police uniform with three stars, P Cap, Red Belt and Red Shoes. Section 171 of I.P.C. provides that even if the person has the knowledge that it is likely to be believed that he belongs to that class of public servant, then it would be an offence. 22. Section 171 of I.P.C. provides that even if the person has the knowledge that it is likely to be believed that he belongs to that class of public servant, then it would be an offence. 22. In the present case, according to the prosecution the applicant was wearing the Police uniform with three stars without ribbon, P cap, Red belt and red shoes, whereas he do not belong to police service and from the facts and circumstances of the case, it can be inferred that the applicant had the knowledge that it is likely to be believed that he belongs to that class of public servant. Thus, under the facts and circumstances it cannot be said that the material which is available on record is not sufficient to prima facie make out a case under Section 171 of I.P.C. As pointed out earlier that there is nothing on record that whether as per the provision of section 251 of Cr.P.C. 1973 the substance of accusation has been stated by the Court below or not, therefore, at this stage, it is not known that what allegations have been levelled by the Trial Court as per provisions of section 251 of Cr.P.C. 1973 23. Thus, this Court is of the view that prima facie offence under Section 171 of I.P.C. is made out against the applicant. 24. Before parting with this case, it is made clear that the observations in this order have been made in order to consider the submissions made by the applicant. As these observations have been made while considering the facts of the case within the limited scope of powers under section 482 of Cr.P.C. 1973 therefore, the Trial Court is directed to decide the Trial on the basis of the evidence which would come on record without getting prejudiced by any of the observations made by this Court. 25. Accordingly, the application filed under section 482 of Cr.P.C. 1973 fails and is hereby dismissed.