The main legal point established in the judgment is the standard of evaluation of evidence at the stage of framing charges and the complainant's right to file a revision petition against a discharge order.

This Criminal Revision under Sections 397 read with 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 is preferred for quashing the order dated 30-12-11 passed by 1 Additional Sessions Judge, Gwalior in Criminal Revision No. 170/09 reversing the order dated 19-1-09 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gwalior in Criminal Case No. 13451/06, State of M.P. Vs. Prem Sharma, whereby the petitioner herein/accused has been discharged from the offence punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468 and 471 of IPC and remanded the matter back to the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gwalior for reconsideration of framing the charge against the petitioner herein/accused.

2. The relevant facts for adjudication of this case are that the respondent No. 1 herein/complainant, Shivprakash Mishra filed a written complaint on 26-9-04 at Police Station, Gole Ka Mandir, District Gwalior alleging that the petitioner herein who is Prem Sharma s/o Baldev Raj Sharma got the job on the post of Technical Assistant in the Lakshmi Bai National Institute of Physical Education, Gwalior (for short 'LNIPE') on the basis of Higher Secondary School Certificate issued by the Board of Secondary Education, Madhya Pradesh, Bhopal in favour of one Shiv Prasad Mishra s/o Baladeen Mishra with the help of the officials of the LNIPE and continuously doing the job in the name of that person whereas the original Shiv Prasad Mishra s/o Baladeen Mishra is working as Conductor in the Madhya Pradesh Road Transport Corporation, Gwalior (for short 'MPSRTC'). The complaint was enquired into and a case was registered on 11 -10-04 at Crime No. 369/04 under Sections 420,467,468 and 471 of IPC against the petitioner herein/accused, Prem Sharma alias Shiv Prasad Mishra. After completing the investigation, a charge-sheet was submitted on 16-11-06 before the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Gwalior against the present petitioner for the offence punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468 and 471 of IPC which was registered as Criminal Case No. 13451/06.

3. The learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gwalior after considering the material placed on record found that prima facie no case is made out against the accused and, therefore, discharged him from the offence punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468 and 471 of IPC. Being aggrieved thereof, the respondent No. 1 herein/complainant/Shivprakash Mishra preferred a revision. The Revisional Court vide the impugned order dated 30-12-11 allowed the revision and remitted the matter back to the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gwalior" for reconsideration of the matter of framing charge against the accused. Challenging the aforesaid remand order, this revision petition is preferred by the petitioner herein/accused.

4. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner herein/accused challenged the propriety and legality of the impugned order on the following grounds:-

(a) That, the respondent No. 1 herein/complainant has no right to prefer the revision against the order dated 19-1-09 passed by the ACJM, Gwalior in Criminal Case No. 13451/06;

(b) From the entire prosecution evidence collected during the course of investigation, no case under Sections 420, 467, 468 and 471 of EPC is made out against the petitioner herein/accused as it has never been stated by the prosecution that the petitioner ever created any kind of forged document/marks-sheet.

(c) The alleged forged marks-sheet has not been seized and produced before the Court and, therefore, in the absence of the aforesaid document, no case under Sections 420, 467, 468 and 471 of IPC is made out. In this regard, learned Counsel placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in the case of Mangilal Agarwal Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh through P.S., Kotwali, Dewas, 2012 Cri.LR (MP)

(d) The respondent No. 1/complainant also worked in the LNIPE and retired from service in the year 2000 but he never made any complaint earlier against the petitioner before any authority;

(e) No a