IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl.Misc.No.M-23147 of 2009 (O&M Date of decision : 11.2.2010 Inder Singh … Petitioner Versus Dharampal and others …Respondents CORAM : HON’BLE MRS.JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr.B.R.Mahajan, Advocate for the petitioner. Sabina J. Petitioner-Inder Singh has filed this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short ‘Cr.P.C.’) for setting aside the judgment dated 20.5.2009 (Annexure P-3) passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Hisar, upholding the order dated 15.1.2007 (Annexure P-1) passed by the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Hisar to the extent of discharging accused respondents Nos.1 and 4 and charging respondents No.2 and 5 only under Section 465, 471 and 193 of the Indian Penal Code ( in short ‘IPC’) and further direction that accused respondents be ordered to be charged under Section 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B, 193, 194, 195 and 196 IPC. The brief facts of the case as noticed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge in paras 3 of its judgment reads as under:- “Brief facts necessary for the disposal of above noted revision petitions, as emanating from trial court record, are that Inder Singh complainant filed a criminal complaint in the court of Illaqa Magistrate wherein he alleged that accused in connivance with each other had forged two affidavits on dated 2.7.2002 in the name of Rukmani, for the purpose of securing conviction of complainant and his family members. He alleged that Rukmani wife of his brother Rajpal, had expired on 8.7.2002 where after respondents/accused Dharampal, Jagdish and Dharambir Soni, in connivance with the police, lodged a false case against Rajpal, complainant and his son Ajay under Section 306 IPC. Dharampal Crl.Misc.No.M-23147 of 2009 respondent No.1/accused No.1 is father in law of respondent- accused no.4 Dharambir Soni, advocate and he is maternal uncle of respondent No.2-accused No.2 Jagdish, whereas respondent no.5-accused no.5 Bhup Singh Garg Advocate and accused no.4 Dharambir Soni advocate were practicing together in District Courts in Hisar. After lodging of criminal case, accused no.1, 2 and 4 were not satisfied and they in connivance with accused no.3 and 5 prepared two affidavits Rukmani wife of Rajpal in the back date of 2.7.2002 and accused no.5 Bhup Singh Garg Advocate (revisionist in other revision petiton) identified Rukmani on the back date. It was alleged that accused- respondent No.3 Bhupinder Kumar Khanna, Stamp Vender give stamp in back date in the name of Rukmani, which was in fact procured from the said person by accused no.2, Jagdish and hence all the accused were party to the fabrication of affidavit. Complainant led preliminary evidence whereupon all the respondents accused were summoned by the learned trial court.” Vide order dated 15.1.2007, Judicial Magistrate 1st Class Hisar ordered that the charge be framed against the accused Jagdish and Bhup Singh Garg. Aggrieved by the said order, the complainant filed a revision petition praying that charges be also framed against the remaining accused. Bhup Singh also filed a revision petition challenging the order of the Magistrate whereby the charges were ordered to be framed against him. Both the said petitions were decided by the Additional Sessions Judge, Hisar vide impugned order dated 20.5.2009. After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner, I am of the opinion that no ground for interference by this Court is made out. The allegation leveled by the complainant in his complaint is that Rukmani wife of Rajpal brother of the complainant had died on 8.6.2002 and thereafter accused Dharampal, Jagdish and Dharambir Soni in connivance with the police had got lodged a false case against Rajpal, complainant and his son 2 Crl.Misc.No.M-23147 of 2009 Ajay under Section 306 IPC. The accused also prepared two affidavit of Rukmani in back date. Rukmani was identified by accused Bhup Singh Garg, Advocate. The stamp vender-Bhupinder Kumar Khanna had given the stamp papers in back date. The complainant led his pre-charge evidence and thereafter, charge was ordered to be framed against two of the accused i.e. Jagdish and Bhup Singh Garg. It is a settled proposition of law that at the stage of framing of charge, the trial Court is required to see as to whether a prima facie case exists against the accused or not. Bhupinder Kumar Khanna, stamp vender had given the stamp papers in the name of Rukmani by taking signatures of Jagdish in the register. On the reverse side of the stamp paper, signatures of Rukmani appeared although she was illiterate and the complainant led evidence to the effect that the signatures of Rukmani were affixed by PW-3 Naveen. In these circumstances, the learned Additional Sessions Judge rightly held that Bhupinder Kumar Khanna was liable to be charged along with Jagdish and Bhup Singh Garg. So far as the accused Dharampal and Dharambir Singh are concerned, their involvement was not disclosed in the complaint moved by the complainant to Superintendent of Police, Hisar. In these circumstances, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Hisar rightly held that no weightage could be given to the statement of Naveen qua the involvement of accused Dharampal and Dharambir Singh. Hence, no ground for interference by this Court is made out. Dismissed. [ Sabina ] Judge 11.02.2010 sd 3 Crl.Misc.No.M-23147 of 2009 4