FRANSIS JARJ DEVID Vs. STATE OF RAJ.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision petition has been filed by the complainant Fransis Jarj Devid, against the order dated December 12, 2005 of Special Judge, SC and ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Ajmer in Criminal Revision No. 98 of 2005 discharging the accused non -petitioner from the charges under Sections 420, 468, 471 and 472 IPC and quashed the order dated August 25, 2004 of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate No. 2, Ajmer in Criminal Case No. 256 of 1999 by which charges were framed against the accused petitioner for the offence under Sections 420, 468, 471 and 472 IPC.

(2.) BRIEF facts of the case are that the complainant petitioner filed a complaint against accused non -petitioner and two other persons stating therein that the degree and marks -sheet on the basis of which the accused non -petitioner entered in service are forged one and obtained from the Varansey Sanskrit University in the year 1989 -1990, while the said University was closed in the year 1974. In this regard the complainant petitioner submitted copy of letter dated Feb. 26, 1996 and Shivira Magizine of March, 1995 in which the said University was declared forged after 1974. In the complaint it was further stated that in this regard the petitioner made complaint to the State Government, Police Department and other concerned officials but no effective action has been taken, therefore, he filed the aforesaid complaint. In the complaint it as further stated that the Institution in which the accused non -petitioner got service is an aided Institution and getting aid from the State Government. The learned Magistrate sent the complaint under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. for investigation in the matter before the Police Station Civil Lines Ajmer. On aforesaid complaint the police registered FIR No. 80/1996 on April 12, 1996 under Sections 420, 468, 471 and 472 and 120B IPC and started investigation. After investigation the police submitted challan before the concerned Court for offences under Sections 420, 468, 471 and 472 IPC. After taking cognizance of the offence the accused non -petitioner was summoned. When the accused petitioner presented himself in person in the Court, the brief of the aforesaid charges were read and explained to him from which the accused denied and requested for trial so the offence was recorded. During arguments the accused non -petitioner stated that the degree and marks -sheet was obtained by him from the recognized University and he was appointed through proper channel after verification of his documents by the RCCMDSE. The trial Court after hearing both the parties and perusing the material available on record found that on the basis of University Hand Book no mention of Varansey Sanskrit University is mentioned in the recognized Universities and there exist a name of Sampurnanand Sanskrit University, earlier which was known by the name of Varansey Sanskrit University, which was closed on 14.12.1974 and its name was changed as Sampurnanand Sanskrit University. Therefore after 1974 the degrees issued by the name of Varanasey Sanskrit University are forged, while the accused non -petitioner obtained degree in the year 1989 -90 by the name of Varanasey Sanskrit University. In view of these facts and circumstances the trial Court vide its order dated August 25, 2004 found guilty to the accused non -petitioner for offences under Sections 420, 468, 471 and 472 and framed charges under the aforesaid sections. Against the order dated August 25, 2004 the accused non -petitioner submitted a revision petition before Special Judge, SC and ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Ajmer. The Special Judge allowed the revision petition of the accused non -petitioner vide order dated December 12, 2005 and quashed the order of the trial Court dated August 25, 2004. Complainant -petitioner now preferred this revision petition before this Court.

(3.) ON the other hand, learned Counsel for the accused respondent Mr. Rahul Tewari opposed the arguments advanced by the Mr. K.N. Sharma. Mr. R.S. Shekhawat, Public Prosecutor argued that the Judge Special Court rightly quashed the order of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate No. 2 framing charges against the accused respondent on the basis of the material available on record. This Court further in revisional power should not interfere with the order quashing the charge against the accused non -petitioner.