* I4 + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI CRL.REV.P. 36212008 & Crl M A 7949212009 SHANKER PRASAD TANTI ..... Petitioner in person. versus STATE Through Mr. Sanjay Lao, APP CORAM: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR ..... Respondent o ORDER 08.05.2009 1. The challenge in this petition is to an order dated 15ft May 2008 passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate ('MM') dismissing the application under Section 215 CnPC filed by the Petitioner in FIR No. 45199 under Sections 420147I IPC registered at Police Station Lodhi Colony, New Delhi. 2. Earlier the Petitioner had filed Crl M C No. 2860 of 2004 in this Court questioning an order framing charge against him for the aforementioned offences. That petition was dismissed by a judgment dated 14th September 2006. Although this Court had dismissed the petition, there are certain observations which the Petitioner seeks to take advantage of to contend that Crl Rev P 362/2008 page no 1/3 Digitally Signed By:AMULYA Certify that the digital file and physical file have been compared and the digital data is as per the physical file and no page is missing. Signature Not Verified )I charges framed by the trial court were not consistent with those observations. 3. This Court does not find any error in the impugned order dated 15th May 2008 passed by the learned MM dismissing application filed by the Petitioner under Section 2I5 CnPC seeking rectification of the charges. The learned MM has rightly observed that this Court in its order dated l4th September 2006 upheld the earlier order passed by the learned MM framing charges and did not interfere with it in any manner. 4. It appears to this Court that the observations made by this Court in its order dated 14th September 2006 to the effect: "normally the petitioner who belongs to scheduled caste category would not like to produce forged certificate because he could get a genuine caste certificate since he, in fact, belongs to the scheduled caste category", are in the passing and should not be read as findings of this Court. In fact in the same order in the very next line this Court has observed "however, that would be a matter which needs to be examined by the trial court at the appropriate stage." 5. The case is stated to be listed before the trial court for the prosecution Crl Rev P 362/2008 page rto 2/3 CD evidence. In that view of the matter, all the contentions raised in this petition are left open to be urged by the petitioner at the appropriate stage before the trial court. 6. The petition is without merit and it is dismissed as such. MAY 08, 2009 rk CrI Rev P 362/2008 page no 3/3 + -\,/ S. MURALIDHAR, J