H.R. Panwar, J. - (1.) By the instant criminal misc. petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the petitioners have assailed the order dated 15.7.2005 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Ratangarh (for Short 'the revisional court' here in after) in Criminal Revision No. 41/2003, whereby the revisional court allowed the revision petition filed by non-petitioner No. 2 Ishwar Ram against the order dated 2.5.2003 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ratangarh (for short the trial court hereinafter) discharging the petitioners for the offence under Section 420 IPC.
(2.) I have heard learned counsel for the parties. Perused the orders of the trial court as well the revisional court.
(3.) The revisional court while setting aside the order of the trial court noticed that the provisions of Section 244 Cr.P.C., have not been followed. IT was a case instituted on a complaint filed by non-petitioner No. 2. The statements of complainant and his witnesses under Section 200 Cr.P.C. were recorded and thereafter the trial court took the cognizance of the offence under Section 420 IPC and issued the process. Ho wever, at the stage of precharge evidence, the trial court in its order at page 4 noticed that no charge of forgery is made out and accordingly discharged the petitioners. From the record it appears that there was no issue of forgery. On the contrary, the point in issue was cheating. The trial court went on premise as if the charge for the forgery is to be framed. On revision, the revisional court held that it was a complaint case and complainant and his witnesses have been examined by the trial court under Section 200 Cr.P.C. The case being a warrant triable, a pre-charge evidence under Section 244 Cr.P.C. was required to be recorded which the trial court failed to record and discharged the petitioners. Be that as it may. Even otherwise, the order of discharge passed b the trial court is bad to the extent in holding that no charge for forgery is made out. The trial court went on saying that the offence of forgery has prima-facie not been established and discharged the accused. On this count alone, the order of the trial court deserves to be set aside. The revisional court, in my view, has rightly set aside the order of the trial court, though on-other premises.;