- (1.) THE instant misc. petition has been filed by the petitioner ­ Swapan Mukherjee challenging the order dated 25.5.2011 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jodhpur in Criminal Case No.299/2005, whereby, charges under Sections 420 and 406 IPC have been framed against the petitioner. The said order has been affirmed in revision by order dated 29.11.2011 passed by the learned Addl. District Judge, No.1, Jodhpur.
(2.) BRIEFLY stated the facts necessary for the disposal of this misc. petition are that the respondent No.2 filed a complaint in the court of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jodhpur on 22.6.2005 alleging inter alia that the petitioner had given an advertisement in a news paper dated 12.5.2004 for conducting Pre Teacher's Education Test. The complainant- respondent No.2 alleged that on seeing the advertisement, she approached the petitioner and submitted her form for the purpose of appearing in the Pre Teacher's Education Test. She advanced a total fees of Rs.6800/- to the petitioner in three installments. She further alleged in the complaint that the petitioner induced her into believeing that the test for PTET shall be conducted within a period of six months from filling of the form. But, despite lapse of a long period of time, the test was not conducted and the complainant was not made to appear in the said examination, thereby, putting a cloud on her future. The complaint filed by the complainant was forwarded to the Police under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., whereafter, an FIR No.300/2005 was registered against the petitioner for the offences under Sections 420 and 406 IPC and investigation commenced. The police after investigation filed a charge- sheet against the petitioner for the aforesaid offences. The petitioner appeared before the trial court i.e. the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jodhpur and contested on the question of charges. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jodhpur by order dated 25.5.2011 directed framing of charges against the petitioner for the aforesaid offences. The petitioner assailed the order of framing charges by way of filing a revision and the learned revisional court too has affirmed the order of the learned trial court framing charges against the petitioner.
(3.) THE petitioner ­ Swapan Mukherjee appearing in person before this Court submits that he never gave any advertisement as alleged by the complainant. He submits that he was simply working as an educational counsellor and never gave any advertisement for conducting the Pre Teacher's Education Test. He submits that neither the complainant has placed on the record any such advertisement by which it can be inferred that the petitioner induced her into believing that he was having the Pre Teacher's Education Test conducted nor the Investigating Officer has recovered any such advertisement during the course of the investigation. He submits that the advertisement given by the petitioner which has been recovered by the Investigating Officer simply mentioned that the petitioner expertises in the teacher's training courses for nursary and primary teachers. The petitioner submits that in view of the aforesaid facts, it is apparent that the complainant who herself is a teacher with six years' experience has filed a patently false FIR stating therein totally incorrect facts for the purpose of harassing the petitioner. He has filed on record the judgment of the District Consumer Forum dated 1st July, 2011, whereby, the complainant's petition under the Consumer Protection Act filed against the petitioner with almost the same allegations has been dismissed with a cost of Rs.1000/-. The petitioner thus submits that as the very substratum of the complainant's case is false, the order framing charges against the petitioner is grossly illegal and amounts to an abuse of the process of the court deserves to be quashed.;