The main legal point established in the judgment is that the framing of charges is not a determination of guilt but a notice of the accusation for the accused to address during trial, and it should be based on whether there are sufficient grounds to proceed against the accused, without appreciating the evidence for convicting the accused.

1. In this petition filed under Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the petitioner seeks quashing of the order dated 29.09.2014 passed by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Jammu whereby the petitioner has been charged for offence under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 read with Section 120-B RPC.

2. The case of the petitioner is that he is serving as a Girdawar in the Revenue Department and is presently posted at Tehsil Thathri. On 02.01.2009, respondent No.5 being husband and attorney holder of respondent No.6, filed an application before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate Jammu for investigation under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. The allegations against the petitioner are that the petitioner has forged the register of Khasra Girdawari and made fictitious entries in the name of Swar Ali and Mubarak Ali with respect to land measuring 2 kanals under Kh.No.01 min owned and possessed by the respondent No.6 situated at village Sunjwan Tehsil and District Jammu. It is further contended that the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, in turn, directed in-charge Police Station Crime Branch-respondent No.3 to look into the allegations and proceed under law. The respondent No.3, in pursuance of the order dated 09.07.2009 passed by the learned CJM, Jammu, registered FIR No.18 of 2009 under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 read with Section 120-B RPC against the petitioner and other accused persons mentioned in the complaint. After registration of FIR, respondent No.3 has produced the challan before the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Jammu on 25.04.2013, who vide its order dated 29.09.2014 has discharged the co-accused, namely, Haji Sultan, Sadiq Ali, Abdul Khaliq, Sham Din and Akhtar Ali as apparently no prima facie case was found against them, whereas the petitioner and two other alleged accused, namely, Mubarak Ali and Swar Ali have been charged for offence mentioned above.

3. It is further stated that there was no sufficient ground before the learned trial court to proceed against the petitioner. Even if the evidence which the prosecution purposes to adduce to prove the guilt of petitioner is fully accepted, the same does not show that the petitioner has committed the offence. In the charge sheet, a presumption has been drawn by the prosecution that the petitioner was the custodian of record when the insertion was made; the learned trial court without sifting the record has drawn a wrong conclusion and held the petitioner responsible which is not based on facts and material available. Further it is stated in the charge sheet that on 17.08.2009, the petitioner, then Halqa Patwari Sunjwan produced the said register girdwari before the Tehsildar Settlement Jammu for verification, who after detecting the forged entry, ordered cancellation of the said girdawri made in the name of the accused persons. Perusal of register Fard partal dated 17.08.2009 entered by the Tehsildar Settlement Jammu reveals that the same was produced for verification by the then patwari Halqa Mohd Maqbool and not the petitioner herein. The Court below ignored this vital discrepancy in the charge sheet and wrongly charge sheeted the petitioner. On 18.05.2007, the petitioner while posted as patwari halqa Sunjwan had issued copy of khasra girdawri of existing entry for the year Kharif 1999 to Rabi 2006 in favour of alleged accused Mubarak Ali. The alleged fictitious entry presumed to have been made by the petitioner was not sent to FSL test for comparison with the handwriting of the petitioner by the investigating officer. It is further stated that the respondent No.6 in her Attorney executed on 09.09.2008 and attested by the Notary Jammu on10.09.2008 has clearly stated that respondent No.6 is owner in possession of land measuring 2 kanals falling under Kh.No.01 min situated at Village Sunjwan Tehsil and District Jammu. The respondent No.6, intentionally, deliberately and knowingly omitted the word “State Land” in her Special Power of Attorney. It is, there