IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr. Revision No. 85 of 2005 Date of decision: 10.11.2008 Varinder Pal Singh Bedi … Petitioner Versus State of H.P. & another … Respondents Coram : The Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.K. Ahuja, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the petitioner: Mr. Deepak Kaushal, Advocate. For the respondents: Mrs. Shubh Mahajan, Deputy Advocate General, for respondent No. 1. Mr. Bimal Gupta, Advocate, for respondent No. 2. V.K. Ahuja, J. (Oral): This is a revision petition filed by the petitioner against the order passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rajgarh, dated 5.7.2005, framing charge as against the petitioner under Sections 406, 420, 465 and 468 I.P.C. Briefly stated, the facts of the case, as alleged by the complainant/respondent No.2, are that he filed a complaint before the trial Court as against the petitioner making allegations as against him. It was alleged that the petitioner had misused a cheque of Rs.60,000/- issued by the complainant by getting it encahshed in a fraudulent manner. The allegations in the complaint were that that the complainant had already instructed the accused/petitioner through registered A.D. as well as by informing the bank that this cheque should not be encashed. It 1Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. 2 was alleged that the petitioner/accused made misuse of the blank signed letter pad of the complainant and by issuing fresh instructions to the bank, he got the cheque encashed in a fraudulent manner. On this complaint, directions were issued by the learned trial Court under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., on which a case was registered by the police. After investigation, the challan was filed as against the petitioner and thereafter charge under four sections mentioned above, was framed. Being aggrieved, the petitioner has filed the present petition. I have gone through the allegations made in the complaint and the evidence recorded by the police during investigation of the case. I do not intend to make any observations in regard to the evidence whether it is sufficient or not, but suffice it to say that prima facie a case was made out in view of the assertions made in the complaint, as such, charge was framed under Sections 406, 420, 465 and 468 I.P.C. The plea raised by the petitioner is that the he has not misused the pad of the complainant and this plea and other pleas shall be considered by the learned trial Court during the trial of the case and no observation can be made at this stage in regard to those allegations. In view of the above discussion, I am of the opinion that no case is made out for quashing of the charge framed as against the petitioner and the petitioner should face trial before the trial Court. However, keeping in view the fact that the case is pending since long, the learned trial Court shall try to dispose of the case and shall fix the case for evidence on day-to-day basis and shall try to dispose of the case as far as possible by 31st March, 2009. It is for the petitioner to apply for exemption from personal hearing, if so he desires and it is for the Court to consider this plea as and when a prayer is made. With these observations, the revision petition is dismissed. Parties to appear before the learned trial Court on 26th November, 2008, 3 who shall fix the next date for further proceedings. There is no order as to costs. A copy of the order alongwith record be returned to the learned trial Court. In view of the dismissal of the main petition, the interim order dated 17.8.2005, confirmed on 24.4.2006 in Cr.M.P. No. 344 of 2005, shall stand vacated. V.K. Ahuja ) November 10, 2008 Judge (BSS)