At the discharge stage, a court must assume the prosecution's evidence is true and evaluate if it discloses necessary elements of the alleged offences.

JUDGMENT :

1. The instant Criminal Revision has been filed by the petitioner against the Order dated 13.06.2017 (for short ‘the impugned order’) passed by the court of learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge Srinagar (for short ‘trial court’), in a case titled State Vs. Parvaiz Ahmad Bhat & Ors., arising out of FIR No.43/2009 registered at Police Station Panthachowk, for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 420, 467, 120-B RPC, whereby the respondents, as accused, were discharged from the aforementioned offences.

2. The impugned order has been assailed on the ground that the order has been passed against the facts and circumstances of the case and contrary to law; that the trial court has returned the finding upon the complaint treating it as civil matter/dispute, which is erroneous, inasmuch as, there was sufficient material on record to charge the respondents for the commission of aforementioned offences; that the trial court has not appreciated the most important aspect of the case to the extent that if there was a sale-deed already executed in the year 1990 in favour of the respondent No.1 and 2 and same was within the knowledge of respondent No.3, why mutation had been affected on the basis of alleged ‘oral gift’ in favour of respondent No.2 in the year 1996, that too when the testator had already died in the year 1995; that the trial court has erroneously held that there was no fake document, but the mutation of the land in favour of respondent No.2 was done by respondent No.3 by manipulating the revenue records and in contravention of Rules, in connivance with respondent No.1 and 2; that there was sufficient incriminating material and evidence on record to establish involvement of accused in cheating and dishonestly delivery of property, forgery of valuable document and criminal conspiracy in connivance to each other, as such, there was no occasion for the trial court to discharge the respondents.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner while reiterating the grounds taken in the memorandum of Revision Petition, has argued that the respondent No. 1 and 2, with the active connivance with respondent No.3, who was Patwari of the local halqa, had got the mutation attested on the strength of ‘oral gift’ made by the grandfather of the donee i.e., respondent no.1 in the year 1996, whereas the fact of the matter is that the donor had expired in the year 1995, as such, there was no occasion to act upon the oral gift made by the deceased and that the respondent no.3 has also retained ‘parat sarkar’ of the mutation at his home instead of his office, which clearly indicates that the respondents were in hand and glove with each other in committing the offences, which had been proved to have been committed by them during the investigation and the charge-sheet had been laid against them.

4. Mr. Sajad Ashraf, further argued, that the sale-deed had been executed in the year 1990 with regard to the same land between the same parties, therefore, in presence of the ‘sale-deed’ having already been executed, there was no question of any ‘oral gift’ for the same property and the respondents 1 and 2, by hatching a criminal conspiracy with respondent No.3, who was the Revenue Official, got the land in question mutated in favour of respondent No.1. It was further argued that the property having been already devolved on the strength of sale-deed, holding of the trial court that there was no occasion in making reference of gift deed and acting on that mutation was attested, is not understandable, as such, it was prayed that the impugned order be set aside with a direction to the trial court to proceed further in the matter after framing of charge against all the respondents, so that they are brought to justice.

5. Learned counsel, appearing for the respondent No. 1 and 2, on the other hand, argued that the complaint was lodged by the complainant -Ghulam Nabi Bhat but that complaint had not disclosed as to what was the fake document, acting o