IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr.MMO No. 75 of 2008. Date of decision: September 30, 2008. Sat Pal Saini & anr. …..Petitioners. Vs. State of H.P. …. Respondent. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kuldip Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioners : Mr. Mahesh Sharma, Advocate. For the Respondent : Mr. Anshul Bansal, Addl. Advocate General. Kuldip Singh, Judge (oral). The petitioners have filed this petition for quashing of proceedings in Criminal Case No. 34/2 of 2003 pending before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Shimla. 2. The petitioners’ case is that one Babar Jang Singh got registered an FIR No. 271/02 on 8.8.2002, under Sections 420, 468, 471, 506 and 120-B IPC at Police Station, Sadar Shimla against the petitioners alleging therein that the petitioners had forged the signature of the complainant in agreement dated 5.5.1990 and tried to grab his property. The petitioners had even filed a suit for specific performance on the basis of agreement dated 5.5.1990, which was dismissed on 23.3.2002. The expert also gave opinion that the Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? …2… signature on the agreement were not of the complainant. The petitioners appeared before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Shimla and they filed an application under Section 239 Cr.P.C. alongwith copies of statements of witnesses recorded in Civil Suit No. 61/1 of 1998/93, copy of FIR No. 215/93, copy of rojnamcha No. 12 dated 15.6.1993, copy of application submitted by the wife of petitioner No. 1 to the Superintendent of Police on 17.7.1993 in order to show that no case is made out against the petitioners. However, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate had framed the charge against the petitioners on 15.5.2007 under Sections 420, 468, 471, 120-B, IPC. The petitioners had filed Criminal Revision No. 19-S/10 of 2007 against the order dated 15.5.2007, which was dismissed by the learned Sessions Judge, Shimla on 2.4.2008. Thereafter the petitioners have filed the present petition. 3. The petitioners have submitted that earlier the complainant had got registered an FIR No. 215 dated 15.6.1993 against the petitioners, which was cancelled later on. The petitioners had filed suit for specific performance against the complainant and one Gurmit. The complainant did not act but only after the service of summons upon him in civil appeal filed by the petitioners against the judgement, decree of the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), he lodged false and frivolous FIR against the present petitioners to coerce, pressurize them to withdraw the appeal. The complainant at the most could move under Section 340 Cr.P.C. It has been alleged that learned Chief Judicial Magistrate has not appreciated the material on record while framing the charge against the petitioners. It …3… has been submitted that on the basis of material on record, no case is made out against the petitioners and in all probabilities they are going to be acquitted. The petitioners bonafide filed criminal revision against the order dated 15.5.2007, which was dismissed on 2.4.2008 by the learned Sessions Judge. It has been submitted that the criminal revision was not maintainable against the order dated 15.5.2007. On these grounds, the petitioners have filed the present petition for quashing the proceedings in Criminal Case No. 34/2 of 2003. 4. The respondent has filed reply and contested the petition. It has been submitted that petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is not maintainable inasmuch as criminal revision filed by the petitioners against framing of charge has already been dismissed by the learned Sessions Judge, Shimla on 2.4.2008. The petition has been filed in order to delay the just decision in the case. The complainant Babar Jang Singh on 8.8.2002 had made a complaint against the petitioners that they tried to grab his land by forging agreement dated 5.5.1990. The petitioners even filed a civil suit on the basis of agreement dated 5.5.1990. The suit was dismissed by the learned Sub Judge Ist Class, Court No. 1, Shimla on 23.3.2002. It has been contended that the petitioners have fabricated false story of execution of agreement. In these circumstances, FIR No. 271 dated 8.8.2002 was registered. The respondent has prayed for dismissal of the petition. 5. Heard and perused the record. The case of the complainant is that petitioners have fabricated agreement dated …4… 5.5.1990 in order to grab his land and they even filed case No. 61/1 of 98/93 against the complainant and one Gurmit Singh on the basis of agreement dated 5.5.1990. The suit was dismissed by learned Sub Judge Ist Class Court No.1 Shimla on 23.3.2002. The learned Sub Judge, on issue No. 1, has returned the finding against the petitioners regarding the execution of the agreement. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, vide order dated 15.5.2007, has ordered framing of charge against both the petitioners. The order dated 15.5.2007 was assailed by the petitioners by way of Criminal Revision No. 19- S/10 of 2007, which was dismissed by the learned Sessions Judge, Shimla on 2.4.2008. It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioners that in all probabilities they are likely to be acquitted on merits. At the time of framing of charge, what is to be seen whether prima facie case against the accused on the basis of allegations made in the complaint/ FIR and other material on record is made out. At the time of framing of charge, the case is not to be considered from the angle that accused would be acquitted later on. The two courts have gone into the material on record and prima facie came to the conclusion that there is material on record for framing the charge against the petitioners. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that there is contradictory material on record. There is difference between contradictory material and no material on record. The material produced by petitioners alongwith application under Section 239 Cr.P.C., if brought on record during trial in accordance with law will be considered by the trial court, but that material cannot be …5… considered at the time of framing of charge. It will be seen during trial whether case has been made out for acquittal or conviction. It has been submitted that criminal petition filed by the petitioners against the order dated 15.5.2007 was not maintainable, but it has not been pointed out why the earlier criminal revision petition against the order dated 15.5.2007 was not maintainable. The petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. cannot be treated as a second criminal revision. 7. The result of above discussion, the petition fails and the same is accordingly dismissed. The records of the case be sent back immediately to the courts below. September 30, 2008. ( Kuldip Singh ) (Hem) Judge.