HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Crl. Revision No. 198 of 2004 1. Chandra Gopal Goswami, 2. Krishna Gopal Goswami, Both sons of Madan Mohan Lal Goswami, R/o Biharipur, Vrindavan, Mathura. ----Applicant/Revisionists. Versus C.B.I. through SP C.B.I., Dehradun. ------- Respondents Sri L.K. Tewari, learned counsel for the revisionist. None is for the respondent. Dated: 26th June, 2008 Hon’ble Dharam Veer, J. This revision preferred u/s 397/401 of The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the Cr.P.C.) has been directed feeling aggrieved with the framing of charge against the revisionists dated 09.06.2004 u/s 120-B, 420 I.P.C. by Judicial Magistrate (CBI), Dehradun in CBI case no. 187 of 1992 CBI vs. J.L. Goel and others. 2. From perusal of the record it reveals that the respondent CBI submitted a charge sheet before the Court of Judicial Magistrate, (CBI), Dehradun against the accused/revisionists alongwith some other persons for prosecuting them u/s 120-B, 420 I.P.C. and a CBI Crl. Case no. 187 of 1992 was registered against them. The Magistrate concerned took cognizance of the crime, the accused/revisionists were summoned by the Court below and on 09.06.2004 the Court below framed charge against the accused/revisionists Chandra Gopal Goswami and Krishna Gopal Goswami for the offence punishable u/s 120-B and 420 I.P.C. The charge was read over and explained to the accused/revisionists who pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried simultaneously, aggrieved with the framing of charge, the accused/ revisionists have preferred the instant revision. 2 3. The revision has been filed on the ground, inter-alia that on the basis of the charge sheet submitted by the CBI, no offence as alleged is said to have been made out against the revisionists, because the necessary ingredients of criminal conspiracy and cheating are absent. No criminal liability has arisen, hence the present criminal prosecution against the revisionists is an abuse of process of law. 4. None is present on behalf of the respondent CBI. I have heard Sri L.K. Tewari, learned counsel for the revisionists and perused the record. 5. Learned counsel for the revisionists has submitted that there is no interim order of this Court in this revision and after preferring the instant revision the trial has been transferred to the State of U.P. and further proceeding is continuing in the Court concerned at State of U.P. It is submitted that as the revision has been rendered infructuous, hence he does not want to press this revision. 6. Otherwise also, on perusal of the record and after going through impugned charge dated 09.06.2004 framed against the accused/revisionists by the Judicial Magistrate, I do not find any illegality, incorrectness or impropriety in the impugned charge which has been framed against the accused/revisionist u/s 120-B, 420 I.P.C. on the basis of the evidence and material available on the record. The revision is devoid of merits and liable to be dismissed. 7. Accordingly, the revision is dismissed being infructuous. (Dharam Veer, J.) 26.06.2008 NCM: