JUDGMENT : ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY, J. 1. Heard the parties. 2. This criminal miscellaneous petition has been filed invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. with a prayer to quash the FIR and the entire criminal proceedings including the order dated 18.09.2021 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ramgarh in Ramgarh P.S. Case No. 57 of 2020, corresponding to G.R. No. 933 of 2021 whereby and where under the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ramgarh has taken cognizance of the offences punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468 and 471 of Indian Penal Code. 3. The brief fact of the case is that the petitioner obtained a B.Ed. degree certificate purportedly awarded by the Jodhpur National University for prosecuting a course of one year B.Ed. degree from Marwar B.Ed. College, Jodhpur. Initially in the year 2008, Marwar B.Ed. College was given recognition by the N.R.C., with Marwar B.Ed. College, Jodhpur is affiliated to the University of Jaipur. Subsequently, by fraudulent means, affiliation of Marwar B.Ed. College, Jodhpur was changed to that of Jodhpur National University. Jodhpur National University is a private university which cannot be an affiliated university. The petitioner never went to the Jodhpur in Rajasthan for prosecuting the B.Ed. degree course where Marwar B.Ed. college is situated but by obtaining fraudulent means she has forged and fabricated a degree purported to be a valid degree of B.Ed. and submitted that same and on the basis of such forged degree has got herself appointed as Assistant Teacher for Khortha language through Staff Selection Commission, Jharkhand in upgraded High School, Marar, Ramgarh. After verification the forgery committed by the petitioner was found out and this FIR was lodged. 4. After investigation of the case, police found the allegation against the petitioner to be true and submitted charge sheet against her for having committed the offences punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468 and 471 of Indian Penal Code. 5. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ramgarh upon receiving the charge sheet has taken cognizance of the said offences vide order dated 18.09.2021 in Ramgarh P.S. Case No. 57 of 2020. 6. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner by relying upon the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Sheila Sebastian vs. R. Jawaharaj & Anr. Etc. 6. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner by relying upon the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Sheila Sebastian vs. R. Jawaharaj & Anr. Etc. in Criminal Appeal Nos.359-360 of 2020 dated 11.05.2018 (2018 INSC 494) that inter alia it has been observed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in paragraph no. 25 that a charge of forgery cannot be imposed on a person who is not the maker of the same and for constituting the offence punishable under Section 464 of Indian Penal Code, it is imperative that a false document is made and the accused person is the maker of the same, otherwise the accused person is not liable for the offence of forgery. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner next relied upon the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Mariam Fasihuddin & Anr. vs. State by Adugodi Police Station & Anr. reported in 2024 INSC 49 wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in paragraph no.11 has observed that in order to attract the provisions of Section 420 of Indian Penal Code, the prosecution has to not only prove that the accused has cheated someone but also that by doing so, he has dishonestly induced the person who is cheated to deliver property. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India also reiterated the three components of the offence punishable under Section 420 of Indian Penal Code are (i) deception of any person (ii) fraudulently or dishonestly inducing that person to deliver any property to any person and (iii) mean rea or dishonest intention of the accused at time of making an inducement. 8. It is next submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that as none of the ingredients of the offence punishable under Section 420 of Indian Penal Code is made out against the petitioner hence, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ramgarh has committed a grave illegality by taking cognizance of the offence punishable under Section 420 of Indian Penal Code against the petitioner. 9. It is next submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner relying upon the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Mohammed Ibrahim & Ors. vs. State of Bihar & Anr. 9. It is next submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner relying upon the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Mohammed Ibrahim & Ors. vs. State of Bihar & Anr. reported in (2009) 8 SCC 751 , wherein in paragraph no.13 it has been observed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India that the condition precedent for an offence under Section 467 and 471 of Indian Penal Code is forgery. The condition precedent for forgery is making a false document and in that case a sale deed was executed in favour of a person who was in no way connected with the land amounted to committing forgery of the document with the intention to taking possession of the complainant’s land if colludes with the person who has created the false document and the registration of the sale deed, such purchasers would be liable for the offences of creating a forged document. 10. Learned counsel for the petitioner next relied upon the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Shriniwas Pandit Dharamadhikari vs. State of Maharashtra reported in (1980) 4 SCC 551 wherein when two educational certificates of the appellant was before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India was found to have been forged and, such document, were produced to get admission in the college, it was held that the same could not be described as ‘valuable security’ as the expression is defined in Section 30 of Indian Penal Code and therefore, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India altered the conviction under Section 471 read with Section 467 of Indian Penal Code to one under Section 471 read with Section 465 of Indian Penal Code. Hence, it is submitted that in this case also as the certificate has been forged so no offence punishable under Section 467 of Indian Penal Code could be made out against the petitioner. 11. Learned counsel for the petitioner next relied upon the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Rekha Jain vs. The State of Karnataka & Anr. 11. Learned counsel for the petitioner next relied upon the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Rekha Jain vs. The State of Karnataka & Anr. reported in 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 468 wherein in the facts of that case as it was found that there was no allegation against the accused of that case of any inducement by her to deceive and to deliver gold jewelries and such allegations were against her husband, in the facts of that case, it was held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India that the accused Rekha Jain cannot be said to have committed the offence punishable under Section 420 of Indian Penal Code and submits that in this case also, the petitioner cannot be held liable for the offence punishable under Section 420 of Indian Penal Code. 12. It is next submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner had no knowledge that certificate issued by the Jodhpur National University was fake one and due to ignorance she has used the said certificate issued by the University. It is fairly submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that Jodhpur National University distributed more than 25,000 degrees to students and Government of Rajasthan has already initiated proceeding for dissolving the said University and the Enforcement Directorate has also taken action and attached property of the ex-Chairman of the university. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has been assured by the consultants namely Pramod Seth and Sanjeev Yadav and the petitioner has filed Complaint Case No.601 of 2021 in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ramgarh against the person who duped her of Rs.1,50,000/- and provided false certificate of B.Ed. degree. Hence, it is submitted that the prayer as made in this criminal miscellaneous petition be allowed. 13. Learned Special Public Prosecutor on the other hand opposes the prayer to quash the FIR and the entire criminal proceedings including order dated 18.09.2021 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ramgarh in Ramgarh P.S. Case No. 57 of 2020, corresponding to G.R. No. 933 of 2021. 13. Learned Special Public Prosecutor on the other hand opposes the prayer to quash the FIR and the entire criminal proceedings including order dated 18.09.2021 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ramgarh in Ramgarh P.S. Case No. 57 of 2020, corresponding to G.R. No. 933 of 2021. Relying upon the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Shriniwas Pandit Dharamadhikari vs. State of Maharashtra (supra), learned Special Public Prosecutor submits that therein in the facts of that case when a forged certificate was furnished by the accused of that case to get admission, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India upheld the conviction of the accused for the offence punishable under Section 417 and 420 of Indian Penal Code. It is next submitted by learned Special Public Prosecutor that true it is that the academic certificate may not be a valuable security but certainly, as has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Shriniwas Pandit Dharamadhikari vs. State of Maharashtra (supra), the offence punishable under Section 471 read with Section 465 of Indian Penal Code can be made out against the petitioner and as Section 465 is a minor offence of the offence punishable under Section 467 of Indian Penal Code so during the trial, the trial court is competent on the basis of the evidence to record a conviction of the petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 471 read with Section 465 of Indian Penal Code as was done in the case of Shriniwas Pandit Dharamadhikari vs. State of Maharashtra (supra) but the same is not a ground to quash the entire cognizance order. 14. So far as the judgment relied by the petitioner in the case of Rekha Jain vs. The State of Karnataka & Anr. (supra), it is submitted by learned Special Public Prosecutor that the facts of that case is entirely different from the facts of this case. 14. So far as the judgment relied by the petitioner in the case of Rekha Jain vs. The State of Karnataka & Anr. (supra), it is submitted by learned Special Public Prosecutor that the facts of that case is entirely different from the facts of this case. The fact of that case involved an allegation that the husband of Rekha Jain by misrepresentation induced and with intention to cheat the complainant of that case had taken away the gold jewelries but as there is no allegation against Rekha Jain of any inducement to deceive and to deliver gold jewelry, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India held that the offence punishable under Section 420 of Indian Penal Code is not made out against the accused of that case but here in this case, there is direct and specific allegation against the petitioner that the petitioner colluded in forging a certificate which she knew to be a forged one and used that certificate to get him appointed as an Assistant Teacher. It is next submitted by learned Special Public Prosecutor that as in this case the degree in question is a B.Ed. degree so it can very well be assumed that the petitioner was at least a graduate, before being involved in obtaining the fraudulent B.Ed. degree. It is then submitted that a graduate must know that for obtaining a degree, a student has to attend classes in the college either physically or obtaining materials through correspondence course. Now in this case, no correspondence course was involved so the only way the petitioner could have obtained a valid degree is by physically attending the classes of the course of B.Ed. in Marwar B.Ed. College, Jodhpur but indisputably, the fact remains that the petitioner never went to Marwar B.Ed. College, Jodhpur nor attended any classes; therefore, the collusion of the petitioner in obtaining the forged B.Ed. certificate is apparent. It is next submitted that therefore, the ratio of Rekha Jain vs. The State of Karnataka & Anr. (supra) is not applicable to the facts of this case. 15. So far as the judgment of Mohammed Ibrahim & Ors. vs. State of Bihar & Anr. certificate is apparent. It is next submitted that therefore, the ratio of Rekha Jain vs. The State of Karnataka & Anr. (supra) is not applicable to the facts of this case. 15. So far as the judgment of Mohammed Ibrahim & Ors. vs. State of Bihar & Anr. (supra) is concerned, it is submitted by learned Special Public Prosecutor that in this case there is indisputably a forgery and the same is admitted by the complainant by filing Complaint Case No. 601 of 2021 in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ramgarh but that is a case subsequent to the institution of this case and for the selfsame occurrence, there was no need to institute a separate case and in this case if evidence comes during the trial the other accused persons have also committed the offence; then such other co-accused persons can also be arrayed as accused and in this case as there is direct allegation of collusion of the petitioner in preparing and using a forged B.Ed. degree certificate by the petitioner to ensure her appointment as an Assistant Teacher, so the judgment of Mohammed Ibrahim & Ors. vs. State of Bihar & Anr. (supra) is no way helpful to the petitioner. 16. It is next submitted by learned Special Public Prosecutor that so far as the judgment of Mariam Fasihuddin & Anr. vs. State by Adugodi Police Station & Anr. (supra) is concerned, the facts of that case is entirely different from the facts of this case and the facts of this case is squarely covered by the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Shriniwas Pandit Dharamadhikari vs. State of Maharashtra (supra) wherein in an identical case, where the educational certificate was forged to get admission in a college, it was held that the offence punishable under Section 417 and 420 of Indian Penal Code is made out. So in this case also in view of the identical facts, the offence punishable under Section 420 of Indian Penal Code is made out but the facts of Mariam Fasihuddin & Anr. vs. State by Adugodi Police Station & Anr. So in this case also in view of the identical facts, the offence punishable under Section 420 of Indian Penal Code is made out but the facts of Mariam Fasihuddin & Anr. vs. State by Adugodi Police Station & Anr. (supra) , being different from the facts of this case; as in that case the allegation against the accused persons was that the accused persons has forged the signature on the minor child passport application and submitted the same to the Regional Passport office hence, the judgment of Mariam Fasihuddin & Anr. vs. State by Adugodi Police Station & Anr. (supra); is of no help to the petitioner. 17. So far as the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Sheila Sebastian vs. R. Jawaharaj & Anr. Etc. (supra) is concerned, it is submitted by the learned Special Public Prosecutor that true it is that the charge of forgery cannot be imposed upon a person who is not the maker of the same but in view of the ratio of the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Mohammed Ibrahim & Ors. vs. State of Bihar & Anr. (supra), a persons who colludes with another person or who himself creates a forged document is liable for the offence of forgery and as has been held in the case of Shriniwas Pandit Dharamadhikari vs. State of Maharashtra (supra) wherein a person who forged educational certificate to get admission was convicted for the offence punishable under Section 471 read with Section 465 of Indian Penal Code. Hence, it is submitted by the learned Special Public Prosecutor that as there is ample evidence in the record to proceed with the trial of the case which has already begun hence, at this belated stage when the petitioner has not chosen to file a petition for discharge and the trial is proceeding, this is not a fit case where the entire criminal proceeding or the order of cognizance be quashed and set aside. Hence, it is submitted that this criminal miscellaneous petition being without any merit be dismissed. 18. Hence, it is submitted that this criminal miscellaneous petition being without any merit be dismissed. 18. Having heard the submissions made at the Bar and after going through the materials in the record, it is pertinent to mention here that as rightly being submitted by learned Special Public Prosecutor that the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Shriniwas Pandit Dharamadhikari vs. State of Maharashtra (supra) has under identical facts of that case where an educational certificate was forged to get admission in a college, in no uncertain manner upheld the conviction of the accused of that case in respect of the offences punishable under Section 417 and 420 read with Section 511 of Indian Penal Code and altered the conviction under Section 471 read with Section 467 of Indian Penal Code to one under Section 471 read with Section 465 of Indian Penal Code. 19. Now in this case, there is direct and specific allegation against the petitioner that she has forged a certificate purportedly to be a certificate of Bachelor of Education issued by Jodhpur National University by prosecuting a B.Ed. course in Marwar B.Ed. College, Jodhpur. The undisputed fact remains that the petitioner has never prosecuted any course in Marwar B.Ed. College, Jodhpur. Jodhpur National University being a private university is not entitled to affiliate a B.Ed. college. The petitioner herself admits forgery having been committed but her defence is that she has been cheated by someone else and alleging that she admittedly filed Complaint Case No. 601 of 2021 but for the offence of forgery as Ramgarh P.S. Case No. 57 of 2020 has already been instituted and for the selfsame occurrence, there is no need for instituting a subsequent case. As rightly submitted by the learned Special Public Prosecutor that there is substance in the prosecution case that the petitioner colluded in forging the document because the conduct of the petitioner in having obtained a B.Ed. degree certificate on payment of Rs.1,50,000/- as admitted in paragraph no.21 of this criminal miscellaneous petition cannot absolve the petitioner of the charge of collusion because the petitioner being an educated lady having obtained a degree of graduation before colluding in commission of forgery; cannot be expected to be so naïve, that she does not have any idea that for obtaining B.Ed. degree unless it is through any correspondence course and for a degree which is to be obtained by prosecuting a regular course in a college, a student has to go to that college to attend classes and to appear in examination in that college. It is not the case of the petitioner that she either obtained the degree through any correspondence course. The petitioner has obtained a degree of a regular course by not going to the college concerned, which is situated in the State of Rajasthan, whereas the petitioner is admittedly a resident of Jharkhand. 20. Under such circumstances, this Court does not find any justifiable reason to quash the entire criminal proceeding or the order taking cognizance. 21. Accordingly, this criminal miscellaneous petition being without any merit is dismissed.