JUDGMENT :

Dinesh Kumar Singh, J.

The present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed against the order dated 5.10.2021 passed by the Special Judge, MP, MLA/Additional Session Judge, Court No. 19, Lucknow, whereby the charges against the accused-petitioner have been framed under Sections 420, 465, 468, 471, 203, 211 read with Section 120-B IPC.

2. Sri Purnendu Chakravarty, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that initially charge-sheet dated 23.7.2017 was filed against the petitioner for offences under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 203 and 120-B IPC. On the said charge-sheet, cognizance was taken on 31.7.2017 for offences under Sections 211 and 120-B IPC by the learned Magistrate. The said order taking cognizance dated 31.7.2017 was challenged by the prosecution in Criminal Revision No. 590 of 2017. However, the learned revisional Court dismissed the said revision by a detailed judgment and order dated 13.8.2020 and affirmed the order passed by the learned Magistrate taking cognizance for offences only under Sections 211 and 120-B IPC.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that there was no further evidence brought before the Court to support the charges for offences under Sections 420, 465, 468, 471, 203 IPC. However, the learned trial Court has framed the charges for the said offences against the petitioner vide impugned order dated 5.10.2021. It has been further submitted that once the learned Magistrate and the revisional Court have considered the evidence, which was brought on record and they did not find that the offences under Sections 420, 465, 468, 471, 203 IPC were prima facie made out, there was no occasion for the learned Magistrate to frame the charges for the said offences on the same material. He has also submitted that the petitioner did not file the discharge application of the offences under Sections 420, 465, 468, 471, 203 IPC as he did not have any opportunity to file the discharge application in respect of the said offences.

4. On the other hand, Sri Anurag Varma, learned AGA has submitted that in the first charge-sheet dated 23.7.2017, it was said that the offences under Sections 420, 465, 468, 471, 203 read with Section 120-B IPC were made out against the accused-petitioner. However, it was said in the first charge-sheet that regarding other accused, the investigation was on and after taking possession of the alleged forged and fabricated documents, the same would be sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory for their examination, and after receiving the report from the Forensic Science Laboratory, supplementary charge-sheet would be filed in respect of the criminal conspiracy by the other accused in forging the documents etc. He, therefore, submits that the first charge-sheet dated 23.7.2017 was not a final charge-sheet and the investigating officer was investigating the offence further as mentioned in the charge-sheet itself.

5. Learned AGA has also submitted that, thereafter, the documents which were allegedly forged, were procured by the Investigating Officer and the same were sent for their forensic examination to the Forensic Science Laboratory. After receiving the report from the Forensic Science Laboratory and also taking the statement of the Deputy Director of the Forensic Science Laboratory, who examined these documents, supplementary charge-sheet dated 17.3.2018 was filed against co-accused, Smt. Ashok Pandey for offences under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 203 and 120-B IPC. The investigation did not stop at that stage and it was carried on further. A second supplementary charge-sheet came to be filed on 29.5.2018 against co-accused, Smt. Pushpa and Bujbeer for offences under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 203 and 120-B IPC.

6. Learned AGA has further submitted that at the time of taking cognizance on the first charge-sheet, the report of the Forensic Science Laboratory as well as the statement of the Deputy Director of the Forensic Science Laboratory, and the statem