The court cannot quash a charge at the stage of charge if evidence against the accused go un-rebutted and still the accused cannot be convicted.

Suresh Kait, J.

1. Vide the instant petition, petitioner has assailed the order on charge and framing of charge dated 23.07.2010 passed by ld. Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate-3 Delhi as under:-

“Order on charge.

Heard on charge. File perused prima facie record shows that the case for the offences, punishable u/s 471/420/511/IPC is made out against Kumar Sahay Verma & M/s. Bijwasan Agrao (P) Ltd. and a case for commission of offence punishable u/s 467 IPC is made out against accused Dilbagh Singh Kanwar and a case of commission of offence punishable u/s 120B IPC r/w Section 467/471/420 r/w 511 IPC is made against all the accused persons. Accordingly, charge for the said offences framed against the accused persons separately. The accusation has been read over and explained to them to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

Framing of Charge.

That in the year 1994-95 at Delhi, all of you in furtherance of criminal conspiracy with one another agreed to prepare a false/forged MOU to give additional rebates of various types of M/s. Bijwasam Agro Pvt. Ltd. by National Fertilizers Ltd.(NFL) so that M/s. Bijwasan Agro Pvt. Ltd. could adjust its outstanding amount of Rs.4.16 crores and to cheat NFL and submitted this forged MOU to get rebate and thereby committed an offence punishable U/s 120-B read with Section 461/471/420 r/w 511 IPC within the jurisdiction of this court and within my cognizance.”

2. Being aggrieved, petitioner challenged the aforesaid orders vide Crl. Rev. P. No. 41/2010 before Ld. Addl. Sessions Judge (West), Delhi. Ld. Addl. Sessions Judge while dismissing the case recorded its observation as under:-

“I have perused the impugned order wherein Ld. Trial Court has reached to the conclusion that the record shows a prima facie case for the offences punishable u/s 471/420/511 IPC is made out against the accused Kumar Sahay Verma and M/s Bijwasan Agro Petitioner. Ltd. (revisionist herein). Further, Ld. Trial Court found a prima facie case for commission of offence punishable u/s 120 B IPC r/w/s 467/471/420 r/w/s 511 IPC was also made out against the accused persons that is petitioners herein and Mr.D.S. Kanwar accused No.1. Thus a charge is also framed against the accused persons separately for the offence u/s 471 IPC for using the forged MOU as genuine and further they have been charged for the offence u/s 420 r/w/s 511 IPC for their attempt to cheat NFL by dishonestly inducing it to gives rebate on the basis of that false MOU. Petitioners have also been charged alongwith main accused Mr.Dilbagh Singh Kanwar who has allegedly signed the MOU on behalf of NFL after his retirement for the offence u/s 467/471/420 r/w/s 511 IPC. After going through the material on record, statements of witnesses recorded during investigation and documents relied by the prosecution, it is found that the material collected during investigation is sufficient which raises a grave suspicion against the revisionist/petitioners for their involvement in the alleged forgery of MOU which has been allegedly used as an attempt for cheating by producing the same before the NFL for getting rebates to the tune of Rs.4.16 crores by the revisionist/petitioners.

13. The points raised by the Ld. counsel for the revisionist, if considered, requires meticulous examination of evidence without affording an opportunity to the prosecution to lead its evidence in support of its allegations. Recently Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in Criminal Revision Petition No.513/2004 titled as Rakesh Kumar Gupta vs. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) dated18.09.2009 has discussed the law relating to the framing of the charge in detail and was pleased to hold in Para no. 15 and 16 as under:

Para 15: Thus at the time of framing charge, the court is not supposed to look into the evidence of the case in detail and is only to consider whether there is a strong suspicion against the accused on the basis of the material that comes before it. The court has the power to sift t