ORDER : The present writ petition has been filed for quashing the letter contained in memo no. 693 (BH) dated 04.04.2018, whereby on the basis of the complaint made in the Chief Minister Public Hearing and instruction thereof dated 12.09.2017, a direction has been issued to lodge an FIR against the petitioner for the alleged tampering with the Character Certificate used in getting the tender for the year 2016-17 for renovation of Administrative Building and Library in the campus of the Tribal Development Society Office, Morabadi, Ranchi as in the said character certificate, memo no. 901 dated 23.09.2014, which is the noting/recommendation of the Senior Superintendent of Police, Ranchi has been said to be tampered as memo no. 901 dated 23.09.2015. 2. The factual background of the case as stated in the writ petition is that the petitioner had participated in the tender floated by the respondent no. 5 – the Executive Engineer, Building Construction, Division No. 2, Ranchi for renovation of Administrative Building and Library in the campus of the Tribal Development Society Office, Morabadi, Ranchi., The petitioner, alongwith the requisite tender documents, also attached his character certificate issued on 16.04.2015 under the signature of the Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi. The tender was finally allotted to the petitioner and the work order was issued to him by letter of the respondent no. 5 dated 11.06.2016. Since the earlier character certificate was going to lapse, the petitioner applied for fresh character certificate which was issued to him by the Deputy Commissioner on 20.06.2016. The petitioner also started the work. In the meantime, one compliant was made against him by some competitive contractor alleging that the character certificate of the petitioner dated 16.04.2015 is a tampered one. Thereafter, the respondent no. 5 wrote a letter to the office of the Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi wherefrom it was confirmed that the said character certificate was issued from the said office. However, the respondent no. Thereafter, the respondent no. 5 wrote a letter to the office of the Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi wherefrom it was confirmed that the said character certificate was issued from the said office. However, the respondent no. 5 relegated the matter for reconsideration by the Tender Committee which affirmed the allotment of work in favour of the petitioner on the ground that there was no tampering in the date of issuance of character certificate i.e., 16.04.2015 and since the petitioner had already applied for issuance of the fresh character certificate well before the date of submission of the tender on 25.4.2016 itself which was also issued on 20.06.2016, there was no break in the period except the gap of about two months from 16.04.2015 to 20.06.2016 consumed in the procedural formalities including strike of employees etc. As such, the petitioner does not suffer from any disqualification for want of valid character certificate. Thereafter, the petitioner started the work again and completed the same. However, in the Chief Minister’s Public Hearing, an allegation was levelled against the petitioner on 12.09.2017 for tampering of character certificate by making interpolation in the year portion of the noting/recommendation of the Senior Superintendent of Police, Ranchi. On the basis of the complaint dated 12.09.2017, an explanation was asked vide letter no. 2634 dated 20.09.2017 from the respondent no. 4 – the Superintending Engineer, Building Circle No. 2 who, in turn, replied to the Deputy Secretary-cum-Nodal Officer, Chief Minister’s Public Hearing, Building Construction Department, Ranchi that on the basis of the decision of the Tender Evaluation Committee and the challan dated 25.04.2016 for issuance of fresh character certificate which was ultimately issued on 20.06.2016 and not on the basis of the purported tampered character certificate, the work in question was awarded to the petitioner. However, subsequently a decision was taken on 04.04.2018 to lodge an FIR against the petitioner. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned letter dated 04.04.2018 has been issued on the basis of the letter of respondent no. 6 – the Senior Superintendent of Police, Ranchi dated 28.02.2018 informing that the memo no. 901 dated 23.09.2015 mentioned in the character certificate dated 16.04.2016 is not correct and, therefore, the presumption has been drawn that the petitioner has submitted character certificate dated 16.04.2016 making interpolation in the year portion of memo no. 6 – the Senior Superintendent of Police, Ranchi dated 28.02.2018 informing that the memo no. 901 dated 23.09.2015 mentioned in the character certificate dated 16.04.2016 is not correct and, therefore, the presumption has been drawn that the petitioner has submitted character certificate dated 16.04.2016 making interpolation in the year portion of memo no. 901 dated 23.09.2014, which is the noting/recommendation of the Senior Superintendent of Police, Ranchi. It is further submitted that the petitioner has neither committed any interpolation in the character certificate nor any forged document except the photo copy of its true version has submitted and it seems that the other competitors have committed mischief and tried to falsely implicate the petitioner with the intention to harass him. It is also submitted that even otherwise the said allegation does not make out any offence so as to warrant institution of an FIR under Section 154 Cr.P.C. and consequently, no power of investigation and arrest of the petitioner under Section 157 Cr.P.C. can be invoked by the police which is sine qua non for the same. It is further submitted that the impugned action is without jurisdiction being in transgression of contractual jurisprudence governed by the specific terms and conditions of the contract as contained in F-2 Agreement to be read with the Contractors Registration Rules, 2008, wherein in such circumstance, a complete different course has been prescribed in the nature of ineligibility etc. that too after affording due opportunity of hearing. It is also submitted that the impugned letter has been issued in violation of the principles of natural justice as no opportunity of hearing has been afforded to the petitioner by issuing any prior show-cause notice to him. 4. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent-State submits that the petitioner has submitted tampered document in order to get the tender and the said fact finds support from memo no. 984 dated 28.02.2018 of the Senior Superintendent of Police, Ranchi. As such, the respondent authorities have rightly directed for lodging of an FIR against the petitioner. It is also submitted that after lodging of the FIR, the matter will be investigated by the police and only after getting sufficient material, action would be taken against the petitioner and, therefore, no interference is required at this stage. As such, the respondent authorities have rightly directed for lodging of an FIR against the petitioner. It is also submitted that after lodging of the FIR, the matter will be investigated by the police and only after getting sufficient material, action would be taken against the petitioner and, therefore, no interference is required at this stage. It is further submitted that the fact as to whether the petitioner has derived any benefit from the alleged document is irrelevant. As soon as it is found that tampered document was filed with an intention to obtain wrongful gain, the petitioner will have to face both penal and civil consequences. 5. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials available on record. The petitioner has put challenge to the direction issued by the respondent no. 3 for lodging of an FIR against him alleging interpolation in the character certificate issued on 16.04.2015 with regard to noting/recommendation of the Senior Superintendent of Police, Ranchi as memo no. 901 dated 23.09.2014 is said to be tampered as memo no. 901 dated 23.09.2015. The case of the petitioner is that he has not derived any benefit from the said character certificate, rather before finalization of the tender, he had submitted a fresh character certificate and only after taking into consideration the fresh character certificate, the tender was finalized. 6. The main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the said allegation levelled against the petitioner does not constitute any offence for lodging of an FIR. In support of the said contention, the learned counsel for the petitioner, while inviting the attention of this Court to the Jharkhand Road Construction Contractor Registration Rule, 2008 (hereinafter referred to as the Rule, 2008), submits that the only consequence provided in the Rule, 2008 for furnishing of wrong document is the suspension of the registration of the contractor. 7. The argument of the petitioner does not appear to be convincing in view of the fact that whatever penalty has been provided in Rule, 2008 is merely a civil consequence for furnishing of a wrong document. It doesn’t mean that for submitting the tampered certificate before any public authority for getting any tender, no FIR can be lodged by setting the criminal law in motion. 8. It doesn’t mean that for submitting the tampered certificate before any public authority for getting any tender, no FIR can be lodged by setting the criminal law in motion. 8. The learned counsel for the petitioner has puts reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court rendered in the case of “S.M.D. Kiran Pasha Vs. Government of Andhra Pradesh & Ors.” reported in (1990) 1 SCC 328 . I have perused the said judgment, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that the jurisdiction under Article 226 may be invoked for enforcement of ones right to life and personal liberty. It has further been held that resorting to Article 226 of the Constitution of India after the right to personal liberty is already violated is different from the pre-violation protection. Post-violation resort to Article 226 is for the remedy against violation and for restoration of the right, while pre-violation protection is by compelling observance of the obligation or compulsion under law not to infringe the right by all those who are so obligated or compelled. 9. The said judgment would not help the case of the petitioner in view of the fact that in the present case, it has been alleged against the petitioner that he has filed tampered character certificate in order to get the tender in view of memo no. 984 dated 28.02.2018 issued by the Senior Superintendent of Police, Ranchi giving clarification that memo no. 901 dated 23.09.2015 mentioned in the character certificate of the petitioner dated 16.04.2015 is not correct, which earlier prima facie appeared to the authorities of the Building Construction Department as true. Thus, considering the aforesaid facts and circumstance, in exercise of extraordinary writ jurisdiction, I am not inclined to interfere with the letter dated 04.04.2018 of the respondent no. 3. 10. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed with aforesaid observations.