Point of Law: There are no limits of powers of Court under Section 482 of Code but more power, more due care and caution is to be exercised in invoking these powers.

ORDER :

1. The petitioner has preferred this petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. against the order dated 19.11.2022 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge No.5, Udaipur in Criminal Revision No.57/2018 vide which the learned Revisional Court has dismissed the revision petition of the petitioner and affirmed the order dated 18.07.2018 passed by learned Special Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, (PCPNDT Act, Cases) Udaipur in Criminal Regular Case No.7970/2017 by which the trial Court framed charges against the petitioner for offence under Section 420 IPC.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that both the learned courts below have not considered the material aspects of the matter while taking cognizance and framed the charges against the petitioner. Furthermore, learned revisional Court has also dismissed the revision petition of the petitioner vide order dated 19.11.2022, which is bad in eye of law. Counsel submits that bill of bearings no.23148 shows that it was genuine. Counsel further submits that the proceedings for offence under Section 138 of N.I. Act were initiated by the complainant and a compromise was arrived at between the parties and thereafter a civil suit was also filed which is still pending. In these circumstances, order framing charges per se is illegal and deserves to be set aside.

3. On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor opposed the prayer made by the petitioner and it is submitted that the order of framing charge passed by the learned Court below does not suffer from any infirmity. Learned Public Prosecutor submits that feeling aggrieved by the framing of charges, the petitioner has already preferred a revision petition before the learned Additional Sessions Judge No.5, Udaipur which was dismissed by the revisional court and therefore, at the stage of framing of charge, no interference is called for in the impugned order.

4. I have considered the arguments advanced before me and carefully gone through the material available on record.

5. Prima facie case of fraudulent entry is made out against the petitioner. Moreover, the petitioner had already filed a revision petition against the framing of charge, which has been dismissed by the court of learned Additional Sessions Judge No.5, Udaipur.

6. This Court is of the opinion that trial court has not committed any error in framing charges against the petitioner.

7. It is settled law that at the time of framing the charges, the truth, veracity and the effect of the evidence, which the prosecution proposes to produce are not to be meticulously examined. At this stage, the Court has only to see whether the unrebutted evidence, which the prosecution is to adduce, make way for conviction and if it is so then the charge can be framed. The Court, while framing the charges, is required to evaluate the materials and documents on record with a view to find out if the facts emerging therefrom disclose the presence of all the ingredients constituting the alleged offence.

8. In the case of Sajjan Kumar v. Central Bureau of Investigation reported in (2010) 9 SCC 368, Hon'ble Supreme Court in para 21 of the judgment has laid down the principles which are to be kept in mind by the Court while exercising jurisdiction under Sections 227 & 228 Cr.P.C., which are as below :

"(i) The Judge while considering the question of framing the charges under Section 227 Cr.P.C. has the undoubted power to sift and weigh the evidence for the limited purpose of finding out whether or not a prima facie case against the accused has been made out. The test to determine prima facie case would depend upon the facts of each case.

(ii) Where the materials placed before the Court disclose grave suspicion against the accused which has not been properly explained, the court will be fully justified in framing a charge and proceeding with the trial.

(iii) The court cannot act merely as a post office or a mouthpiece of the prosecution but has to consider the broad probabilities of the case, the