JOSHI, J. - (1.) THE instant petition under Section 482 Cr. P. C. has been filed against the order dated 20. 01. 1998 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Desuri in Criminal Original Case No. 473/96, whereby charges u/sec. 447 and 379 IPC were framed against the accused-petitioners.
(2.) HEARD Mr. N. S. Acharya, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Mahipal Bishnoi, learned Public Prosecutor for the State. It was argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that a civil suit is pending and in that Receiver has already been appointed. The possession of the petitioners was allowed to remain with them on furnishing cash security, which has been deposited upto June, 1995 in pursuance of the order passed by the Board of Revenue on 4. 1. 1984 (B1/25) dated 24. 11. 1995. It was further argued that on 30. 03. 1995, the following order was passed by this Court in S. B. C. Writ Petition No. 891/95:- " Meanwhile, Status-quo as it exists today shall be maintained. " The said writ petition was filed on 27. 03. 1995 and was admitted on 30. 03. 1995. It was argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the proceedings for the possession of the dispute land by the concerned Tehsildar were taken up on 18. 1. 1995 & 14. 3. 1995 in view of the order of this Court dated 30. 3. 1995 in the said writ petition. It was further argued that the rent was offered, but it was refused by the concerned authorities and there was no need to take possession of the property twice (1. 2. 95 & 14. 3. 95 ). It was further argued that Tehsildar had no jurisdiction to dispossess the petitioners in view of receipt (B1/25) of rent and take possession in view of the order of this Court dated 30. 3. 95. The crop was sown by them and the petitioners have jurisdiction take it. therefore, continuation of the proceedings before the trial Magistrate would amount to abuse of the process of the law and are liable to be quashed. Learned counsel for the petitioner further argued that even a revision has been dismissed, the powers u/sec. 482 Cr. P. C. can be exercised by this court in view of the following judgments :- (it is relevant to note here that it has not been clarified by either of the counsels appearing for the parties whether any revision was filed against the impugned order of framing charge? Kana Ram vs. State (1); Devji vs. Smt. Mani (2); Praveen vs. State (3); Bajrangdas vs. State of Rajasthan (4); Jaisaram vs. State (5); Bharat Singh vs. State (6); and Krishan Gopal Parashar vs. Allauddin (7)
(3.) THE learned counsel for the petitioners further argued that the Court is competent to quash the charge in view of the following judgments as no offence has been made out from the material placed by the prosecution before the trial Court:- Rai B. P. vs. State of Kerala (8) (case under the NDPS Act); G. Sagar Suri vs. State of U. P. (9) (case u/sec. 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act); and Hardayranjan vs. State of Bihar (10) (case under the IPC ). Per contra, it was argued by the learned Public Prosecutor supporting the order of the trial Magistrate that the Magistrate was right in jurisdiction to frame charges against the petitioners on the material placed before him. Relying on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Omvati vs. State (11), it was argued that the Court is not expected to consider the truth veracity and effect of the judgment, which the prosecution proposed to adduce are not to be meticulously judged. The standard of test, proof and judgment, which is to be applied finally before an accused is found guilty or otherwise is not exactly to be applied at the stage of framing the charge. Even, on the basis of strong suspicion founded on material before him, the Court can form a presumptive opinion regarding the existence of factual ingredients constituting the offences alleged and in that even t be justified in framing the charges against the accused in respect of the commission of the offence alleged to have been committed by him. It was further argued that at the stage of framing charge against the accused as per the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Kanti Bhadra vs. State of West Bengal (12) that there is no legal requirement that the trial Court should write an order showing the reasons for framing a charge. ;