The main legal point established in the judgment is the determination of prima facie evidence of forgery and the lack of relevance of certain legal precedents cited by the petitioners.

JUDGMENT :

Rajbir Sehrawat, J.

Present petition has been filed challenging the order dated 22.08.2016 passed by the trial court whereby the charge has been framed against the petitioners under Sections 420, 468, 471 and 120B IPC in case FIR No.09 dated 11.01.2014 registered at Police Station Sector 26, Chandigarh, as well as, the order dated 12.04.2017 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, U.T. Chandigarh, whereby the revision petition filed by the petitioners against the order of the trial court has been dismissed.

2. Brief facts giving rise to the present petition are that the complainant herein is a company with the name and style M/s. Gables India Private Limited, operating at Chandigarh and the petitioners are the Directors of another company with the name and style as Harish Chandra (India) Limited operating at Delhi. In the year 2001 the complainant company had a joint venture with the petitioners. The company of the petitioners had availed certain loans from Corporation Bank for its operations. Since the complainant-company was in joint venture with petitioners, therefore, the complainant-company had stood guarantor for credit facilities extended by the Bank to the company of the petitioners. During this arrangement, the documents pertaining to the guarantee in favour of the company of the petitioners, used to be got signed from the complainant by the petitioners at Chandigarh. This arrangement continued for a long time. However, subsequently the joint venture between the petitioners and the complainant-company ceased to exist. Therefore, the complainant-company decided not to stand as guarantor anymore for the credit facilities to be provided by the Bank as per the previous practice. In the year 2009-2010, the petitioner No.1 visited Chandigarh and got signatures of R.P. Garg, the Director of the complainant company, on a letter for extending guarantee for the credit facility provided by the Bank to the company of the petitioners; for the year 2009-2010. However, since the joint venture between the two had ceased to exist, therefore, while signing on the letter of extension of guarantee, the Director of the complainant company, namely, R. P. Garg, made a specific note in his own handwriting that "this extension is valid for financial year March 2009 to March 2010". Since the guarantee furnished by the complainant-company was extended only up to the period of March 2010, therefore, the complainant-company wrote a letter dated 26.06.2010 to the Bank stating therein that the guarantee extended by the complainant company already stood expired. Thereafter, yet another letter was written on 15.09.2010 emphasizing the fact that the guarantee had expired and therefore, the original title documents of the properties be returned to the complainant; and Form No.17 be issued to the complainant for discharging the charge created in favour of the Bank. However, at this stage the Bank sent a letter dated 29.09.2010 stating therein that the Bank had not received any letter limiting the period of guarantee/mortgage up to 31.03.2010. Accordingly, the Bank intimated that request for release of the property could not be accepted. Thereafter, further correspondence went on between the Bank and the complainant-company. In the course of such correspondence the Bank sent to the complainant one communication dated 09.10.2010; detailing therein that the complainant-company had furnished guarantee in favour of the Bank vide letter dated 15.09.2009 and that the extension of this guarantee/mortgage was pursuant to the resolution dated 18.08.2009 passed by the complainant-company. It is at this stage that the complainant-company got indication that fraud has been committed with it and the documents have been forged to create a fake guarantee for the credit facility extended to the petitioners. The complainant got this apprehension because the complainant-company had never passed any such resolution dated 18.08.2009; and the letter dated 15.09.2009 whi