The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of considering all available evidence and applying the relevant legal provisions before framing charges, especially in cases involving allegations of extortion, forgery, and preparation of false documents.

JUDGMENT

Vibha Kankanwadi, J. - Present petition has been filed by the original informant for setting aside the impugned order dated 18-08-2018 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ahmednagar, in Criminal Writ Revision No.116 of 2018, and also order passed below Exhibit 47 in Summary Trial Case No.527 of 2011 by learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Ahmednagar, whereby the application filed by the informant for framing additional charge against the accused persons came to be rejected.

2. The factual matrix giving rise to the petition are that, the present informant lodged First Information Report with the police on 01-03- 2011. On the basis of which offence vide Crime No.72 of 2011 for the offence punishable under Sections 342, 323, 504, 506 read with 34 of the Indian penal Code was registered. The investigation was undertaken, statements of witnesses were recorded, and after completion of the investigation, charge-sheet has been filed before learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Ahmednagar. After the appearance of the accused persons charge has been framed at Exhibit 13 for the offence punishable under Sections 323, 342, 504, 506 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code against the present respondents original accused. Thereafter, on 04-12-2017 an application has been filed under Section 211 of Code of Criminal Procedure by the informant through advocate for addition of charge. It was contended that, there was an attempt by the accused persons to purchase the nonagricultural plot from the husband of the informant forcibly and his signatures have been obtained on false documents. Therefore, it was stated that, it is necessary to keep a charge for the offence under Sections 384, 385, 387 with 465, 466 read with 511 of Indian Penal Code.

3. Say of the accused was called. It was contended that, the informant has no authority to file such an application, it ought to have been presented by the public prosecutor only. It is stated that, the application is very vague and the contents are contrary to the investigation papers. Material on record is not sufficient to frame the charge for the offences stated in the application.

4. After hearing both sides the learned Judicial magistrate, First Class, has rejected the application on 04-04-2018. Thereafter, the present informant filed revision under Section 397 of Code of Criminal Procedure before Sessions Court, Ahmednagar bearing Criminal Revision No.116 of 2018. Said revision was heard by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ahmednagar and the same came to be dismissed on 18-08-2018. Hence, present petition.

5. Heard learned advocate Mr. A. M. Gaikwad for petitioner and learned advocate Mr. Shaikh Mazhar A. Jahagirdar for respondent No.3, and learned APP Mr. A. R. Kale for respondent No.1 State.

6. It has been vehemently submitted on behalf of the petitioner that, both the Courts below have failed to consider that charge can be altered at any time before the Judgment is pronounced. In fact on the basis of the documents on record when the charge Exhibit 13 was framed, the learned Magistrate ought to have considered as to whether any more offence than the offence for which the case is registered are made out or not. The Magistrate cannot confine to those sections those were stated by the police. For the purpose of framing charge not only the First Information Report but the other documents, mainly the statement of the witnesses under Section 161 of Code of Criminal Procedure are required to be taken into consideration. The informant had specifically stated in her First Information Report that, her husband had left the house at about 02.00 p.m. on 01-03-2011 informing her that he has been called by Najju Pahilwan i.e. accused No.1. Thereafter her husband had given her phone call around 07.00 p.m. and narrated the incident. It was also informed by him that, as he is frightened, he is afraid of people. It was informed to her that, accused No.1 insisted that the open plots belonging to