JUDGMENT Ravindra Maithani, J. - Petitioner seeks quashing of FIR No. 567 of 2020, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120B IPC, Police Station Kotwali Manglore, District Haridwar. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties through video conferencing. 3. Fir in the instant case was lodged by respondent no.3, on 11th September, 2020. According to it, in order to show the victim of an offence as a minor, forged transfer certificate was prepared from a Madarsha Imam Hussain, village Jainpur Jhanjhedi (for short "the Madarasha") and the age of the victim was wrongly recorded. The petitioner was Principal of the Madarsha. This matter was reported and an inquiry was conducted thereafter, it was revealed that the documents were forged. Subsequent to it recommendations were made for revoking the recognition granted to the Madarsha. In the FIR, reference has been made to an inquiry report. 4. On behalf of respondent no.3, learned counsel would submit that in the inquiry it was found that there were no records of any of the students and the Madarsha was preparing records, the date of birth etc. as desired by the applicant(s) and during interrogation, the petitioner revealed during the inquiry that she was pressurised by the Madarsha Management to prepare such forged documents. Therefore, she has now resigned. Learned counsel for the respondent no. 3 submits that, in fact, during the inquiry it was also revealed that the Madarsha would sell the books which they received free of cost and FIR No. 44 of 2019 is already pending against the Madarsha Management on that issue. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner was a Principal of the Madarsha. She issued certificates on the basis of the documents which were placed before her. 6. This FIR is not filed instantly by any person levelling allegations of forgery etc. An inquiry was conducted and based on the findings of the inquiry the FIR has been filed. The allegations are that the petitioner in her capacity as Principal in the Madarsha, forged transfer certificate of a victim of an offence with regard to which and FIR is already pending, so as to reveal that the victim was a minor. What is its truthfulness, it would definitely fall for scrutiny during the investigation now. The allegations are that the petitioner in her capacity as Principal in the Madarsha, forged transfer certificate of a victim of an offence with regard to which and FIR is already pending, so as to reveal that the victim was a minor. What is its truthfulness, it would definitely fall for scrutiny during the investigation now. This Court in these proceedings under 226 of the Constitution of India cannot examine the credibility of the averments made in the FIR. The FIR definitely discloses commission of offences. Therefore, this Court is of the view that no interference is warranted. 7. On behalf of the petitioner it is submitted that the petitioner is a woman and she should not be arrested in a routine manner. 8. Needless to say, arrest is not a mechanical act of the Investigating Officer. First and foremost, he has to ascertain the complicity of a person in the offence and thereafter, to weigh in his mind the need for arresting. This Court has no doubt that the Investigating Officer, in the instant case, shall also follow the law on the subject of arrest, if any occasion to arrest arises in the instant case. 9. With the above observation, the instant writ petition stands disposed of.