RAJU PRASAD Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition has been filed by the petitioner for quashing the order dated 21-8-2006 and order dated 6-8-2008 (Annexure No. 3 and 4 to the writ petition ).

(2.) HEARD learned counsel for the petitioner and learned AGA and perused the impugned orders. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that much before initiation of proceedings the petitioner had also lodged a F. I. R. against respondent no. 3 and two other persons which was registered as case crime no. 150 of 2002 and the petitioner being falsely implicated in the present case moved an application before C. J. M. Chandauli for his discharge which was rejected by the impugned order dated 21-8-2006 and the revision filed by the petitioner was also dismissed by the Sessions Judge, Chandauli on 6-8-2008. It is further contended that the petitioner himself is 'khairwar' by caste belonging to schedule caste category and the document has been filed in support thereof which are Annexure No. 5 to 10 in the writ petition ). The petitioner did no forge any document for getting status of scheduled caste as he originally is scheduled caste candidate.

(3.) F. I. R. was got registered by the petitioner for the offences under sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 I. P. C. at police station Syedraja District Chandauli. There is allegation against the petitioner that he forged document for showing his status as scheduled caste. In this case police has submitted charge sheet and Magistrate took cognizance and proceeded with the case. From side of petitioner an application was moved for discharge which was rejected by the impugned order and revisional court has also dismissed revision filed by the petitioner. For framing of charge in warrant triable cases court has simply to consider police report and the documents sent with it under section 173 and making such examination, if any, of the accused as the Magistrate thinks necessary and after giving the prosecution and the accused an opportunity of being heard, the Magistrate considers the charge against the accused to be groundless, he shall discharge the accused, and record his reasons as required under section 239 Cr. P. C. But if upon such consideration, examination, if any, and hearing, the Magistrate is of opinion that there is ground for presuming that the accused has committed an offence then he shall frame in writing a charge against the accused.