RANJIT SINGH, J.
The petitioner prays for quashing of FIR No. 5 dated 01.01.2008 in which the petitioner has been summoned to face prosecution under Section 218 of IPC. The petitioner states that he has been falsely implicated in this FIR and was allowed pre-arrest bail by this Court. This FIR is lodged against Balkaur, Jeet Singh, Jalour Singh, Gurjant Singh and Balbir Singh. After investigation, challan under Section 173 Cr.P.C has been filed against the petitioner under Section 218 IPC.
The petitioner while serving as Patwari is alleged to have done mutation on the basis of forged Will. It is also stated that the Will has gone missing from the record. Obviously allegations is that the Will was removed from the record. The prayer for quashing of this FIR is made on the ground that the real beneficiaries of the mutation on the basis of said Will have not been been challaned and are shown in column No. 2.
Reference is made to the provisions of Section 218 IPC which reads as under:-
“Public servant framing incorrect record or writing with intent to save person from punishment or property from forfeiture. Whoever, being a public servant, and being as such public servant, charged with the preparation of any record or other writing, frames that record or writing in a manner which he knows to be incorrect, with intent to cause, or knowing it to be likely that he will thereby cause, loss or injury to the public or to any person, or with intent thereby to save, or knowing it to be likely that he will thereby save, any person from legal punishment, or with intent to save, or knowing that he is likely thereby to save, any property from forfeiture or other charge to which it is liable by law, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both.”
The offence under Section 218 IPC is by a public servant. The petitioner would plead that no offence under Section 218 IPC is committed by the petitioner and he has been falsely implicated. The petitioner would also plead that he had made entries on the basis of documents provided. The mutation was subsequently contested and the same was sanctioned on the basis of evidence. The allegations against the petitioner are specific and after investigation he is found to have relied on a Will which is not available in record and has gone missing. Merely because the beneficiaries are shown in column No. 2 would not be a ground to quash the proceedings against the petitioner when there are specific allegations against the petitioner for having entered this mutation which fact is not in dispute. Moreover the offence can be alleged against public servant alone.
Counsel for the respondent-complainant is justified in submitting that on the basis of evidence the prosecution can always move an application to summon an additional accused under Section 319 Cr.P.C and mere fact that the beneficiaries are shown in column No. 2 would not mean that proceeding cannot be held against the petitioner. In any event charge is yet to be framed. The petitioner can raise all such pleas before the trial Court. It is for the trial Court to consider this. The action of the Investigating Agency in showing the beneficiary in column No. 2 may not appear justified. The trial Court would look into this aspect and in case it finds some material against the beneficiaries who have taken advantage of this mutation the Court can act in accordance with law. No case for quashing of the FIR on this ground is made out.
The present petition is dismissed.