n/. #2 % 03.05.2011 Present: Mr. K.B. Upadhyay, Advocate for the petitioner. ivis. Fizani Husain, APP for the State/respondent. + Crl.M.A.No.4308/2011(Exemption) Exemption allowed, subject to all just exceptions. Application stands disposed of. +Crl.M.C. No.1184/2011 & CrI.M.A. N0.4307/2011(stav) This is a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of order dated 16.03.2011 of learned Additional Sessions Judge passed in Revision Petition No.44/2010 whereby learned Additional Sessions Judge directed framing of charge under Section 408 IPC against the petitioner in case FIR No.694/2001 P.S. Kirti Nagar. Briefly stated, facts relevant for the disposal of this petition are that Ms. Asha Aggarwal on 18.11.2001 filed a complaint with P.S. Kirti Nagar alleging that on 30.10.2001, the petitioner, an employee of her firm, took three cheques from her office at Delhi to Gurgaon which included one cheque for ?48,000/- dated 30.10.2001 issued from the account of'firm M/s. Shivam Timber. He allegedly encashed that cheque and misappropriated the amount. This fact came to the knowledge of the complainant on 04.11.2001 when the petitioner did not come to the shop for two or three days. It is also 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 alleged in the FIR that the complainant searched for him at his address, but he was not available. This led to filing of the FIR. The Investigating Officer during investigation recorded the statements of witnesses including the complainant. He also collected specimen signatures of the petitioner and sent those specimen signatures for comparison with questioned signatures of the person who collected the cash against the cheque by signing as Pankaj. The expert of FSL, however, on comparison opined that it was difficult to give an opinion about the authorship of the question signatures vis-a-vis specimen signatures. However, on the strength of the allegations in the complaint as well as on the basis of statement of the complainant recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. recorded during investigation, the State filed charge sheet against the petitioner. Learned M.M. on consideration of the charge sheet vide order dated 04.09.2010 discharged the petitioner. Feeling aggrieved, State preferred revision petition against the aforesaid order discharging the petitioner and learned Additional Sessions Judge vide impugned order dated 16.03.2011 found that charges under Section 420/467/468 IPG were not made out, however the charge sheet prima facie disclosed commission of offence under Section 408 IPG by the petitioner. Thus he ordered the petitioner to be charged and tried of the aforesaid offence. The petitioner is aggrieved of aforesaid order. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that case of the prosecution is based on sole version of the complainant which does not find support from the report of FSL or any other evidence. It is submitted that version of the complainant is highly improbable to be trusted for the reason that there is no explanation why the complainant waited till 14.11.2001 to file the complaint when she came to know about the commission of offence on 04.11.2001. Learned counsel for the petitioner has thus urged that there is no purpose to put the petitioner to rigors of trial when outcome of trial is bound to be acquittal and pressed for discharge of the petitioner. Learned APP, on the contrary, has canvassed in favour of the impugned order of learned Additional Sessions Judge and submitted that there is clear allegation of misappropriation of ?48,000/- by the petitioner in the FIR which is supported by the statement of the complainant under Section 161 Cr.P.C. There is also evidence on record to indicate that the cheque was actually encahsed. Learned APP further submits that merely because the handwriting expert has not been able to give opinion against the authorship of the signatures of the person who withdrew the amount against the cheque, the prosecution case cannot be thrown away. Whether or not the complainant is telling the truth is a question of trial which can be only determined after recording the evidence. I have considered the rival contentions and perused the material on record. The FIR as well as the complaint under Section 161 Cr.P.C. do, prima facie, disclose the commission of offence of misappropriation of ?48,000/- by the petitioner who was employee of the firm of the complainant. It is well settled that at the stage of framing of charge, the court has to take a prima facie view of the matter and it is not expected to undertake an intricate exercise of analyzing the evidence to arrive at a conclusion if it is true or false. If a prima facie case is disclosed, the charge has to be framed. In the instant case, allegations in the FIR and the statement under Section 161 CrPC of the complainant do disclose prima facie case under Section 408 IPC. Thus, there is no infirmity in the order of learned Additional Sessions Judge which may call for interference by the Court under Section 482 Cr.PC. Petition is accordingly dismissed. MAY 03, 2011 pst (AJIT BHARIHOKE) JUDGE