Judgment:
CRM-M-8283-2013 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-8283-2013 (O&M) Date of Decision: May 9, 2013 Raghbir Singh and another …Petitioners Versus State of Punjab …Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE NARESH KUMAR SANGHI Present: Mr. S.S. Rangi, Advocate, for the petitioners. NARESH KUMAR SANGHI, J.
1. Prayer in this petition, filed under Section 482, Cr.P.C., is for quashing of order dated 27.10.2012 (Annexure P-5), passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Fatehgarh Sahib, whereby the charge for the offence punishable under Section 420, IPC, was ordered to be framed against the petitioner, and the order dated 9.1.2013 (Annexure P-3), passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Fatehgarh Sahib, whereby the revision petition filed by the petitioner challenging the order dated 27.10.2012 (Annexure P-5), was dismissed.
2. Learned counsel contends that the version narrated by the complainant in the FIR was altogether different than the one narrated to the police in his statement recorded under Section 161, Cr.P.C. He further submits that it was not possible for the CRM-M-8283-2013 (O&M) 2 complainant to have retained the stamp papers for more than one and a half year. To buttress his arguments, learned counsel further submits that the stamp papers were purchased in the year 2006 while the agreement to sell alleged to have been forged in the year 2007.
3. Heard.
4. The brief facts as culled out from the material available on record are that the complainant had purchased six leafs of stamp papers worth `50/- each for the purpose of partition of land. However, he lost those stamp papers, which were later converted into an agreement to sell by the petitioner. During the investigation complainant narrated to the police that, in fact, he had borrowed the amount from the petitioner for the marriage of his daughter and at that time the petitioner had received the signed stamp papers from the complainant and later he forged the agreement to sell. After investigation, the charge- sheet (report under Section 173, Cr.P.C.) was presented before the learned Area Judicial Magistrate, Fatehgarh Sahib. Finding a prima facie case, learned Trial Court proposed to frame a charge vide order dated 27.10.2012 (Annexure P-5). Dissatisfied with the said order, the petitioner filed a criminal revision petition before the Court of Session and the same was also dismissed. The learned Sessions Judge, Fatehgarh Sahib, held that the material available on record prima facie disclosed the CRM-M-8283-2013 (O&M) 3 commission of an offence punishable under Section 420, IPC.
5. Perusal of the material available on record clearly spells out that the petitioner had forged the documents to commit cheating with the complainant for personal gain. In C.P. Malik v. State, 1999 Criminal Law Journal 4525, Hon'ble Delhi High Court held that at the time of framing the charge, the Court is not required to screen the evidence or to apply the standard whether the prosecution will be able to prove the case against the accused at trial. In Amrit Singh v. State of Punjab, 1996 Criminal Law Journal 1610, this Court held that only prima facie case is to be seen, whether the case is beyond reasonable doubt is not to be seen at the time of framing of charges. In State of Maharashtra v. Som Nath Thapa, 1996 (2) Crimes 64, Hon'ble the Supreme Court held that at the time of framing the charge if the Court comes to the conclusion that the commission of offence is a probable consequence, the charge can be framed. The probative value of the material on record cannot be gone into at that stage. Therefore, there is no force in the present petition and the same is hereby dismissed. (NARESH KUMAR SANGHI) May 9, 2013 JUDGE Pkapoor