GOVIND KUMAR Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant miscellaneous petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the order dated 9.2.2012 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Bhilwara in Criminal Revision No. 97/2011 affirming the order dated 5.7.2011 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Bijoliya, district Bhilwara in Criminal Case No. 159/2005 framing charges against the petitioner for the offences under Sections 467, 468, 420 and 120-B, I.P.C.

(2.) Succinctly stated, the facts of the case are that an F.I.R. was registered at the Police Station, Bijoliya on 9.10.2004 on the basis of a written complaint filed by the Tehsildar, Bijoliya. The allegation made in the F.I.R. was that one Chhitar prepared a forged allotment letter dated 25.9.1987 for the purpose of obtaining one Bigha land at Mauja Purohiton J Kheda. Ono the basis of the F.I.R. investigation commenced. It is alleged that during the course of inquiry, the aforesaid Chhitar informed the Investigating Officer that he has made payment of Rs.3,000.00 to the petitioner and had procured the aforesaid letter of allotment. The police, on the basis of investigation, submitted a charge-sheet against the petitioner and co-accused Chlutar for the aforesaid offences. During the course of investigation, the police recovered certain rubber seals from the Office of the Tehsildar, Bijoliya claiming the same to be in the possession of the petitioner. The seizure was made on the basis of suspicion that the petitioner provided/used the said seals for preparing the forged letter of allotment for co-accused Chhitar. The seals so seized and the seals appended upon the forged letter of allotment in favour of Chhitar were not compared by the State Forensic Science Laboratory, Rajasthan and a report was received that it was not possible to hold that the seal impressions on the disputed document were similar to the rubber seals recovered from the office of the Tehsildar, Bijoliya. The Investigating Officer did not procure any opinion of the Handwriting Expert regarding the signatures and the writings on the aforesaid document having been appended by the petitioner. Be that as it may, on the basis of the charge-sheet, the learned Magistrate proceeded to frame charges against the petitioner, as stated above. The petitioner challenged the order framing charge by filing a revision petition and the learned Revisional Court has also affirmed the order framing charges. It is in these circumstances that the instant miscellaneous petition has been preferred before this Court seeking quashing of the charges and all the subsequent proceedings against him pending in the Court below.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there is no material/ legally admissible evidence on record of the case for showing that the petitioner either forged the letter of allotment in question or connived for forging the letter in question. He submits that the charges have been framed against the petitioner without existence of any legal and admissible evidence and therefore, the same deserves to be quashed.