31 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CRL.REV.P. 197/2009 RANA PRATAP CHAUHAN Petitioner Tlirough: None versus STATE Respondent Through; Mr. Pawan Behl, APP for the State CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.K. BHASIN ORDER % 19.05.2010 There is no appearance on behalf of the petitioner. Learned APP for the State says that this being a revision petition cannot be dismissed in default. Without going into that controversy, I have in any case heard learned APP for the State and perused the trial Court record. This petition is against the order of the trial Court framing charges under Sections 406/468/471/120-B IPC. The allegations in this case are that the complainant was cheated by the petitioner and his co-accused persons by taking money from him on the pretext of getting him a property allotted from DDA. For that they are alleged to have conspired with each other and forged title documents purported to have been executed by the DDA. On the complaint of the complainant the police registered the case vide FIR No. 340/1999 for the aforesaid offences. During the investigation, on the arrest of one co-accusedand upon his making confessional statement other accused persons, including the petitioner, were arrested by the police. They also allegedly made confessional statements. Since in the FIR the complainanthad named only one person Prem Kumar Sharma and in respect of other persons he had stated that those persons who were introduced to his son as officialsof DDA were not knownto his sonbuthis sonRavincouldidentifythem CRL.REV.P. 197/2009 P^l of2 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 on being shownto him. In view of that investigatingagencyafterthe an-estof the petitioner got arranged test identificationparade. The petitioner refused to participatein the test identificationparade. In view of the averments made in the complaint coupled with the refusal of thepetitioner/accusedto participatein thetest identificationparadethe learned trial Courtwasjustified in framingchargesagainstthe petitionerand I do not find any infirmityin the impugnedorder.This revisionpetitionis dismissed. P.K. BHASIN MAY 19, 2010/pg CRL.REV.P. 197/2009 Page 2 of 2