JUDGMENT : Heard Mr. B.M. Tripathy, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mrs. Priya Shrestha, learned Spl.P.P. appearing for the State. 2. This petition has been heard through Video Conferencing in view of the guidelines of the High Court taking into account the situation arising due to COVID-19 pandemic. None of the parties have complained about any technical snag of audio-video and with their consent this matter has been heard. 3. This criminal miscellaneous petition has been filed for quashing of the F.I.R. and entire criminal proceedings, in connection with Dhanbad P.S. Case No. 56 of 2019 dated 20.02.2019, pending in the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dhanbad. 4. The FIR was lodged against the petitioner and other accused persons on the basis of written report of Baliram Rawat, Police Sub-Inspector, Dhanbad Police Station stating and alleging therein that permanent warrant of arrest was issued against Rama Singh @ Raju Singh, Ramanuj Prasad and Rama Kant Prasad @ Chhotu and the same was available in this police station. For execution of permanent warrant the police were making efforts to apprehend those accused persons under special operations and the house of the accused was raided but they all were not available there. All the three accused persons produced forged recall in the police station to prevent them. In that recall it was found that the learned Court had directed to submit permanent warrant of arrest and recall in the Court of Sri Arpit Srivastava, Judicial Magistrate and the same was submitted. Thereafter, vide letter No. 55/2019 dated 25.01.2019 issued from the learned Court of Sri Arpit Srivastava it was informed that all the three accused persons have not appeared before the court and the recall was never issued from the Court. It is alleged that the accused persons in connivance with others prepared forged recall and produced in the police station. Hence he prayed for appropriate legal action to be taken against the accused persons including this petitioner. 5. Mr. B.M. Tripathy, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that after lodging of the FIR, the police took up the investigation and the same is also going on. Hence he prayed for appropriate legal action to be taken against the accused persons including this petitioner. 5. Mr. B.M. Tripathy, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that after lodging of the FIR, the police took up the investigation and the same is also going on. He submits that the original case, being G.R. Case No. 4489 of 2005, in which, the petitioner was an accused and the permanent warrant of arrest was issued was compromised and the petitioner and the other accused persons were released and all the processes have been recalled, vide order dated 11.09.2019. He further submits that on a show cause by the concerned Court, the Police Officer has disclosed before the court that this petitioner and other co-accused persons have produced the forged recall order. He also submits that petitioner has unnecessarily been harassed by the police, however, the original case has already been closed. 6. Mrs. Priya Shrestha, learned Spl.P.P. appearing on behalf of the State submits that there is a serious allegation against the petitioner of producing the forged recall order. She also submits that no interference of this Court is required at this stage since the investigation in the case is still going on. 7. On perusal of the FIR, it transpires that there is serious allegation of producing the forged recall order by the petitioner and the other accused persons. The Court is not required to enter into the merits when there is a serious allegation of producing the forged documents of the Court. The Court should not interfere with the FIR unless it was illogical or suffers from procedural impropriety or was shocking to the conscience of the Court. 8. In Union of India Vs. Madan Lal Yadav, reported in (1996) 4 SCC 127 , the Hon’ble Apex Court opined that a person having done wrong cannot take advantage of his own wrong and plea bar of any law to frustrate the lawful trial by a competent court. 9. Further in the case of State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal, reported in 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in para102 clearly stated that what kind of cases can be quashed:- “102. 9. Further in the case of State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal, reported in 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in para102 clearly stated that what kind of cases can be quashed:- “102. In the backdrop of the interpretation of the various relevant provisions of the Code under Chapter XIV and of the principles of law enunciated by this Court in a series of decisions relating to the exercise of the extraordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code which we have extracted and reproduced above, we give the following categories of cases by way of illustration wherein such power could be exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently channelised and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised. (1) Where the allegations made in the first information report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused. (2) Where the allegations in the first information report and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code. (3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused. (4) Where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code. (5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. (5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. (6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party. (7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge.” 10. It also transpires that the investigation is still going on and the case is pending before the concerned court, no case of interference is made out. Moreover, allegation is serious in nature of producing the forged recall order. 11. Accordingly, this criminal miscellaneous petition is dismissed.