Pankaj Naqvi, J. - (1.) Heard Sri Rajesh Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the applicant and learned aGA for the State.
(2.) The O.P. No.2 lodged an FIR as Case Crime No. 1564/2009, under Sections 409, 417, 420, 465, 467, 468, 474, 477A and 120B IPC , P.S. Nawabad, Jhansi against one Sultan Ahmad, the dealing Clerk of the bank alleging that the bank concerned issued a forged recovery certificate in his name on 25.02.2009, by preparing forged documents in the name of the informant, involving the Manager concerned and the dealing clerk Sultan Ahmad resulting in the siphoning of Rs. 50,000/-. After investigation a charge sheet came to be submitted against one Ravi Kant Bandeppa Kalekar and the applicant on 20.11.2010. It appears form the charge sheet that the applicant was exonerated on further investigation. The learned Magistrate on 15.01.2011 took cognizance of the above offences and summoned the applicant and co-accused Rami Kant Bandeppa Kalekar. The applicant filed objection dated 28.09.2013 on the ground that once he was exonerated during investigation he could not have been summoned at the stage of cognizance.
(3.) It is well settled in law that charge sheet is only the conclusions drawn by the Investigating officer on the basis of the materials on record, with which the Magistrate may or may not agree. Once the Magistrate is of the view that there are sufficient materials justifying the summoning of an accused who stood exonerated at the stage of investigation, he is well within his jurisdiction to summon such an accused under Section 190 (b) Cr.P.C.;