RAMESH CHAND VERMA Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner, Ramesh Chand Verma is aggrieved by the order dated 01.02.2012 passed by the Additional Civil Judge (Sr. Division) and Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate No.3, Jaipur Metropolitan, whereby the learned Magistrate has framed charges for the offences under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B IPC against the petitioner. The petitioner is also aggrieved by the order dated 05.06.2012 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge No.6, Jaipur Metropolitan, whereby the learned Judge has dismissed the petitioner's revision petition, and has upheld the order dated 01.02.2012.

(2.) BRIEF facts of the case are that the complainant-respondent No.2, Deen Dayal Choudhary submitted a written report at Police Station JDA, Jaipur, on the basis of which FIR No.290/2011 came to be registered against the petitioner for the offences under Sections 419, 420, 465, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B IPC on 09.04.2011. After completion of the investigation, the Police filed a challan for the offences under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B IPC against the petitioner. On the basis of the challan, Criminal Case No.1150/2011 came to be registered in the Court of Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate No.3, Jaipur Metropolitan. The trial Court, vide its order dated 01.02.2012, framed charges for the offences under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B IPC against the petitioner. Being dissatisfied with the charge order dated 01.02.2012, the petitioner filed a criminal revision before the Additional Sessions Judge No.6, Jaipur Metropolitan but the same has also been dismissed by the learned Judge upholding the order of the trial Court dated 01.02.2012. Hence, this misc. petition before this Court.

(3.) THIRDLY , there is no evidence to show the presence of the petitioner at the time when the documents were made. Thus, the petitioner has not committed the offences under Sections 467, 468 and 471 IPC. Moreover, since his involvement is not clear from the evidence gathered by the police, he has not committed the offences under Section 419 and 420 IPC. Hence, the learned Magistrate has illegally charged the petitioner for the above-mentioned offences. Lastly, the learned Judge has overlooked the illegality committed by the learned Magistrate. Hence, both the impugned orders deserve to be interferred with by this Court. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, and perused both the impugned orders.