BHUPINDER KUMAR Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed with a prayer for quashing of FIR No.305 dated 8.8.2001 under Sections 409, 201 and 120 -B IPC, the summoning order dated 29.3.2006 and order dated 4.4.2009 passed by the Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ferozepur charging the petitioner for commission of the aforesaid offences as also the order dated 16.5.2011 vide which the revision preferred by the petitioner against the order of framing charge has been dismissed.

(2.) BRIEFLY noticing the facts it transpires that a complaint was made by the D.T.O., Ferozepur to DSP, Sub -Division, Ferozepur and FIR No.305 dated 8.8.2001 came into existence. In this FIR the petitioner as well as Amarjit Singh, Indu Behal and Surinder Kumar were arrayed as the persons whose complicity was suspected for causing the loss of cash book of traffic checking (compensation fee) for Rs.1,13,950/ -which had not been deposited with the Government Treasury by the said persons. The embezzlement was detected during the annual audit by the auditors of Accountant General, Punjab. Initially when the challan was submitted the name of the petitioner was not mentioned in the array of the accused persons. Subsequently, the court applied its mind upon an application having been preferred under Section 190 of the Code and found sufficient material against the petitioner to summon him to stand trial. The order was passed on 29.3.2006. The petitioner submitted himself to this order. Thereafter, at appropriate stage the Court of Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate framed the charge against the petitioner vide order dated 4.4.2009 against which the petitioner preferred a revision petition which has been declined on 16.5.2011 prompting him to file the instant petition.

(3.) I have considered the arguments raised before me. The petitioner has been summoned and made to face the trial pursuant to an application moved under Section 190 of the Code. The court prima facie found the petitioner to have come in the zone of suspicion and charged him appropriately. The revisional court did likewise.