U. C. Dhyani, J.

1. By means of present Application under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the applicant seeks following relief, among others:

“To quash the impugned order on charge dated 19.10.2015; framing of charges dated 31/10/2015 by the Special Magistrate, CBI, Dehradun in C.B.I. Case No.620 of 2014; CBI vs. Mukesh Kumar under Section 120-B/420/468/471 IPC pending in the Court of Special Judicial Magistrate (C.B.I.)/ACJM First Dehradun, Uttarakhand and also quash further / entire proceeding C.B.I. Case No.620 of 2014 C.B.I. vs. Mukesh Kumar under Section 120-B/420/468/471 IPC pending in the Court of Special Judicial Magistrate (C.B.I.) / ACJM First Dehradun, Uttarakhand.”

2. An application under Section 239 Cr.P.C. was moved by the applicant before the trial court for seeking his discharge. The said application was dismissed. Thereafter, the charge for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 468, 471 IPC read with Section 120-B IPC was framed, vide order dated 31.10.2015. The same is subject matter of challenge in the present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. The controversy in the instant case revolves around chargesheet no.2/2005, which has been forwarded by the CBI against the applicant on the allegation that he (applicant), for the purpose of seeking a government job, had procured a Scheduled Caste certificate on 03.08.1993 from the office of Tehsildar, Deoband. The prosecution case is that for doing so, the applicant entered into a criminal conspiracy with Bhishambari Devi and Nakli Ram, who were the members of Scheduled Castes community. Both of them executed an adoption deed in the year 1993 so that the applicant may get a government job in that category. The need for getting a caste certificate arose because the applicant was jobless and he was going to be overage for a government job. With the aforesaid objective, the applicant procured a caste certificate on 03.08.1993.

3. It is submitted on behalf of the applicant that when the applicant moved an application under Section 91 Cr.P.C. for procuring a copy of the affidavit, which was stated to be filed by him in the office of Tehsildar, Deoband, the C.B.I. opposed the said application saying that the same has not been relied upon by them. Thus, there is no document available with the prosecuting agency to show concealment on the part of applicant before the Tehsildar, Deoband. It is further submitted by learned senior counsel for the applicant that it is an admitted case of the prosecution that the applicant was born on 04.11.1968 and the advertisement against which the applicant applied for the job was published in the year 1993. Admittedly, the applicant was within the age limit for applying government job, which he got subsequently. It is also contended on behalf of the applicant that no prima facie case is made out against the applicant and learned trial court has framed charges against the applicant without applying its mind and, therefore, the impugned order is liable to be set aside.

4. Today also, learned senior counsel for the applicant reiterated that the adoption cannot be a fraud exercise; the alleged forged affidavit on the basis of which the caste certificate was issued could become a criminal act, but that is not the basis of present controversy, inasmuch as the affidavit has not been brought on record by the prosecution and the prosecution has also admitted that they do not rely upon such affidavit; law as well as the presumption is in applicant’s favour. In reply thereto, learned counsel for the C.B.I. again submitted that the application under Section 91 Cr.P.C. has been dismissed; the applicant ought to have filed a criminal revision and not an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C.; discharge has very limited scope; Hon’ble Supreme Court has already given observations against the applicant and, therefore, the applicant cannot seek his discharge at this stage.

5. When the caste certificate of the applicant dated 03.08.1993 was can