ORDER : In the present petition, the petitioner has sought for quashing the FIR in Crime No.126/2015 dated 21.05.2015, registered against him by respondent No.1-police for the offences punishable under Sections 465 and 471 of Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as ‘IPC’ for the sake of brevity) and under Section 66 of the Information Technology Act, 2000 (hereinafter referred to as “I.T. Act” for the sake of brevity). 2. The summary of the case of the complainant-police is that on behalf of the Director, Pre-University Education Board, Bengaluru (hereinafter referred to as “P.U. Board” for the sake of brevity) a complaint was registered with the respondent-police on 19.05.2015. The summary of the said complaint is with respect to the results of second year Pre-University course for the year March 2015. The P.U. Board was permitting some private bodies to publish the results in their respective websites. Accordingly, the P.U. Board authorised one M/s. H.T. Media, “www.resultout.com”, to publish the Pre-University results in their website. In that regard, the present petitioner i.e., Sri. Adarsh M.S. of M/s. H.T. Media had collected a preloaded compact disk (CD) from the complainant P.U. Board for publishing the same in their website. It is the further allegation in the complaint that one candidate by name M. Monisha complained the P.U. Board that her result as published by the said M/s. H.T. Media in www.resultout.com had shown the subject marks which was at variance from the official publication of the result by the complainant P.U. Board. The said student, M. Monisha is also stated to have been affected by the wrong publication of result by the said private agency. Based on her complaint to it, inturn the P.U. Board had lodged a complaint with respondent No.1 police requesting the police to take action against Sri. Adarsh M.S. (petitioner herein) for the offences punishable under Sections 464, 470 and 471 of IPC and under the I.T. Act. The complaint was registered in the said case in police station Crime No.126/2015 for the offences punishable under Sections 465 and 471 of IPC and Section 66 of I.T. Act. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner in his arguments submitted that the alleged offences are not made out, prima facie and more particularly Section 65 of the I.T. Act has not been made out, as such, the FIR deserves to be quashed. 4. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner in his arguments submitted that the alleged offences are not made out, prima facie and more particularly Section 65 of the I.T. Act has not been made out, as such, the FIR deserves to be quashed. 4. Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader in his arguments submitted that during the course of investigation, the Investigating Officer has recorded the statement of several Officials of the P.U. Board, which clearly reveals that it is the petitioner, Sri. Adarsh M.S., who had collected the CD containing the results for its web hosting. The said CD was later surrendered to the Investigating Officer by the very same person i.e., Sri. Adarsh M.S. in response to the notice issued to him by the Investigating Officer under Section 91 of Cr.P.C., as such, the said CD containing results of the students which was delivered to the said petitioner was collected back from his custody only, as such, there are sufficient material, primafacie,to hold that the alleged offences are committed by him. 5. It is the specific allegation of the complainant that preloaded CD was delivered to the present petitioner for the purpose of web hosting. However, web hosting information was not in consonance with the original contents of the CD, as such, there is all the reason to believe that the said recipient of CD i.e., Sri. Adarsh M.S. (petitioner herein) has forged the contents of the said document before its web hosting. It is with the said specific allegations, the police have attracted the relevant provisions of IPC including the offence for the alleged forgery and creation of a false document, which are punishable under Sections 464 and 470 of IPC. Thus, so far as the offence under IPC are concerned, prima-facie, the complaint makes allegation against the petitioner. 6. The arguments of learned counsel for the petitioner, as observed above is that the offence described under Section 65 of the I.T. Act has not been attracted in the instant case. As observed above, the FIR does not mention Section 65 of I.T. Act, rather it mentions an offence under Section 66 of I.T. Act, as such, the arguments of learned counsel for the petitioner that Section 65 of I.T. Act is not attracted is immaterial. As observed above, the FIR does not mention Section 65 of I.T. Act, rather it mentions an offence under Section 66 of I.T. Act, as such, the arguments of learned counsel for the petitioner that Section 65 of I.T. Act is not attracted is immaterial. In this juncture, what is to be seen is the offence shown to be attracted in FIR is Section 66 of I.T. Act. When Section 66 read with Section 43 of the I.T. Act is perused at this stage, prima facie, it go to show that the alleged damage to the original CD said to have been handed over to the petitioner by the complainant is the main allegation. The said alleged damage in the form of alteration of the CD or alteration of the data stored in the CD whether falls under Section 43 of I.T. Act, more particularly, under Section 43(d), 43(e) and 43(i) read with explanatory note (iv)would be one of the endeavorance which the trial Court may have to consider, provided the crime proceeds and reaches the stage of trial, as such, prima facie, at this stage, it can be said that the contents of the complaint has made specific allegations against the present petitioner with respect to which a case under the relevant provision of law has been registered and the investigation is said to be undertaken. I do not find any reason to quash the said FIR by allowing this petition, as such, the petition stands dismissed.