Mr. Mehinder Singh Sullar, J. (Oral) - Tersely, the facts and material, which need a necessary mention for the limited purpose of deciding the core controversy, involved in the instant petition and emanating from the record are that, initially in the wake of complaint of complainant-Dalbir Kaur widow of Jaipal Singh Dhillon, respondent No.2(for brevity “the complainant”), a criminal case was registered against the petitioner and his other co-accused, by means of FIR No.389 dated 14.11.2006, on accusation of having committed the offences punishable under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B IPC, by the police of Police Station Civil Lines Amritsar.

2. The complainant claimed that her husband Jaipal Singh Dhillon was the owner of the land in question, situated in village Manwala, Tehsil and District Amritsar. After his death, she along with his other LRs, inherited and became owner of the entire property left by Jaipal Singh Dhillon(deceased). According to the complainant that, the petitioner accused-Parminder Singh and his other co-accused had fraudulently prepared a forged General Power of Attorney dated 13.09.1995 of Jaipal Singh Dhillon and her uncle Madan Gopal Singh, whereas her husband had expired on 20.07.1988 and fraudulently executed two forged sale-deeds dated 23.04.1997 and 15.02.2001 in favour of his mother Sarabjit Kaur wife of Kashmir Singh.

3. Levelling a variety of allegations and narrating the sequence of events in detail, in all, according to the prosecution that the petitioner and his other co-accused hatched a criminal conspiracy, fraudulently prepared the false General Power of Attorney and sale-deeds, cheated the complainant in order to grab the property, on the basis of pointed false and forged documents. In the background of these allegations and in the wake of complaint of the complainant, the present criminal case was registered against the petitioner-accused, in the manner depicted hereinabove.

4. After completion of the investigation, the police submitted the final police report (challan). At the same time, petitioner-Parminder Singh and his other co-accused Ramesh Kumar moved an application to discharge them. The trial Court, after taking into consideration the final police report as well as the evidence and documents appended therewith, dismissed their application. Accordingly, all the accused were charge-sheeted for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 420, 465, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B IPC by the trial Court, by virtue of impugned order and separate charge-sheet dated 24.09.2011(Annexure P-8).

5. Aggrieved thereby, the revision petition filed by petitioner- Parminder Singh and his other co-accused Ramesh Kumar, was dismissed as well by the Revisional Court, by way of impugned judgment dated 03.08.2012(Annexure P-9).

6. Instead of submitting to the jurisdiction of the trial Court, the petitioner-accused has straightway jumped to file the present 2nd revision petition(which is otherwise legally barred) in the garb of petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., to challenge the impugned order/judgment (Annexures P-8 and P-9). That is how I am seized of the matter.

7. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner, going through the record with his valuable assistance and after deep consideration of the entire matter, to my mind, there is no merit in the present petition in this context.

8. Ex facie, the celebrated argument of the learned counsel that, since there is no(sufficient) legal evidence on record, so, the petitioner-accused could not be charge-sheeted for the commission of pointed offences, is not only devoid of merit but misplaced as well.

9. As is evident from the record that, specific and direct allegations for the commission of heinous offences are assigned to the petitioner that he along with his other co-accused, hatched a criminal conspiracy, prepared the forged General Power of Attorney dated 13.09.1995 of Jaipal Singh Dhillon, who had already expired on