JUDGMENT 1. - The petition under section 482 Cr.P.C. is for quashing the proceedings in criminal case No. 65/80 Biramsingh v. Bhanwarsingh pending in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pali. 2. Briefly stated the facts are these. Biramsingh filed a complaint against Bhanwarsingh and Hariram. It is alleged that in the year 1974 Bhanwarsingh was the Sarpanch and Hariram, secretary of Gram Panchayat at, Hemawas of Panchayat Samiti, Sojat City. They effected sales of numerous plots of their Panchayat. Dhannaram was also one of the Panches of the Panchayat. Accused forged signatures of Dhannaram of various sale deeds and also on proceedings of the Samiti dated 4.10.1970. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate recorded the statement of the complainant and further examined one more witness Dhannaram. Biramsingh gave a vague statement that on various documents signatures of Dhannaram were forged by the accused Dhanna Ram also made an equally vague statement that his signatures were forged on various documents. When these witnesses were examined, there were no documents before the court. Thereafter the learned Magistrate called certain records of Gram Panchayat Hemawas and somehow found that in those documents signatures of Dhannaram appeared to be forged. 3. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor. It is argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that on this extremely vague evidence, no offence is disclosed. I am inclined to agree with this contention. Statements of the complainant and his witness Dhannaram are extremely vague. They did not specify the documents on which the signatures of Dhannaram were forged. The lacuna in their statements is that when they were examined no document was before the court. The learned Magistrate no doubt called certain documents but there was no proof that those documents related to Gram Panchayat. Hemawas and further the statement of Dhannarm was not available to establish that his signatures were forged on these documents. Even if it is assumed that the signatures of Dhannaram were forged on those files, it is not possible to find out the nature of document contained in those files. Therefore, it cannot be inferred that any document was forged in those files. Even if it is assumed that the signatures of Dhannaram were forged on those files, it is not possible to find out the nature of document contained in those files. Therefore, it cannot be inferred that any document was forged in those files. Forgery would depend on the nature of the documents and as already observed it is difficult to find out the nature of the documents before they were properly tendered in the evidence.That apart, the accused cannot be asked to face a roving enquiry. The allegations must be specific. The documents should have been specified on which the complainant asserts that the signatures of Dhannaram were forged. It was thus observed in Chandradeo Singh v. Parkash Chandra Bose alias Chabi Bose and another ( AIR 1963 S.C. 1430 ) :- "Since the object of an enquiry under Section 202 is to ascertain whether the allegations made in the complaint are intrinsically true, the Magistrate acting under Section 203 has to satisfy himself that there is sufficient ground for proceeding. In order to come to this conclusion, he is entitled to consider the evidence taken by him or recorded in an enquiry under S.202, or statements made in an investigation under that section, as the case may be. He is not entitled to rely upon any material besides this. Where there is prima facie evidence, even though an accused may have a defence that the offence is committed by some other person or persons, the matter has to be left to be decided by the appropriate forum at the appropriate stage and issue of process cannot be refused." I am, therefore, of the opinion that there was no material before the Magistrate which he was legally entitled to consider to satisfy himself whether any prima facie case was made out against the accused. The material before the Magistrate was utterly insufficient to warrant an inference or a prima facie finding that any offence had been committed by the accused. In the circumstances, the continuation of the proceedings is nothing but abuse of the process of the court. 4. In the result the petition is accepted and the proceedings in criminal case No. 65/80 pending in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pali are hereby quashed.Petition accepted. *******