JUDGMENT 1. - This is a miscellaneous petition by which, the order of the Additional Sessions Judge No. 1, Bharatpur, dated 19th Sept., 1987 has been challenged. 2. The Police submitted a challan under Section 406, Indian Penal Code against one Jagdish; and the learned Magistrate on 19th February, 1986 framed charge against him under Section 406, Indian Penal Code. Then, a revision was preferred; and the learned Additional Sessions Judge dismissed the said revision on 19th Sept., 1987 and confirmed the order of the learned Magistrate framing charge under Section 406, Indian Penal Code. This has been challenged in this court on the ground that absolutely, there is no case made out from the record of the case against the petitioner and that both the courts below have misused the process of the court. 3. After perusing the record, I am of the opinion that the entire case has been concocted and made out by the Police. Amarnath who was Asstt. Sub-Inspector of Police posted at Police Outpost Kumher is the author of all this manipulation. The entire case against Jagdish has been later on fabricated. On 6th July, 1979 Mst. Purago submitted a written-report to the SHO, PS Kotwali, Bharatpur alleging that she had pledged one Gold-Kondni with Krishna Kumar, for Rs. 5,000/- through Jagdish Prasad. When she asked to release the said ornament from the pledge on 6th July, 1979, Krishna Kumar refused to return the same. So, she submitted the report, on 6th July, 1979, Then, Amarnath on 8th July, 1979, submitted a written-report to the SHO, Kotwali, Bharatpur, to the effect that on 6th July, 1979, Mst. Purago was interrogated, and she had stated that one Kondni was pledged with Jagdish Prasad for Rs. 5,000/- by her about two years before, and further that when she went to Jagdish Prasad to get the ornament released from pledge, the latter avoided to return the said ornament, and the report dated 6th July, 1979, was dictated as directed by Jagdish Prasad. So, it gives inference that Mst. Purago had pledged the ornament actually with Jagdish Prasad, and later on, she reported at the instance of Jagdish Prasad, and she submitted the report on 6th July, 1979 that the ornament was pledged with Krishna Kumar. 4. Another important aspect is that during her interrogation on 8th July, 1979, Mst. So, it gives inference that Mst. Purago had pledged the ornament actually with Jagdish Prasad, and later on, she reported at the instance of Jagdish Prasad, and she submitted the report on 6th July, 1979 that the ornament was pledged with Krishna Kumar. 4. Another important aspect is that during her interrogation on 8th July, 1979, Mst. Purago did not state that apart from the Kondni she had also kept one 'Hash' and one gold-chain with Jagdish Prasad petitioner after taking Rs. 1,500/-. The case was later on, developed in her statement under Section 161, Cr.PC. She was examined twice under Section 161, Cr.PC. On 8th July, 1978, one statement was recorded, and the second was recorded on 13th July, 1979. In both these statements, this fact was written that she had pledged one Hasli and one gold-chain also, with Jagdish Prasad, after taking Rs. 1500/-. When her statement was recorded on 8th July, 1979, why this fact was not mentioned by Amarnath in the report of 8th July, 1979, which was submitted to the SHO, PS Kotwali, Bharatpur. When this report was submitted by him, this fact was not known that along with Kondni, Mst. Purago had kept one Hasli and one chain also. This shows that the statements under Section 161 Cr.PC dated 8th July and 13th July, 1979, are false ones. 5. Another important aspect is that Jagdish Prasad was arrested on 8th July. He then gave information under Section 27 of the Evidence Act for recovery of one Kondni, and this information was reduced into writing on 9th July, 1979 at about 11 a.m. But, there has been no recovery of Kondni. There is one recovery-memo with regard to Hasli and the gold-chain, prepared on 8th July, 1979, and according to this memo, Jagdish Prasad produced these ornaments to Amarnath in presence of Mst. Purago. When there was no report regarding the Hasli and the gold-chain, by Mst. Purago against Jagdish Prasad, how Jagdish Prasad has been made accused in this case? The report was against Krishna Kumar and he has been let off by the police. From the record, it seems that Amarnath who was Asstt. Sub-Inspector of Police, has fabricated the entire case. And, the learned Magistrate as well as the learned Addl. Purago against Jagdish Prasad, how Jagdish Prasad has been made accused in this case? The report was against Krishna Kumar and he has been let off by the police. From the record, it seems that Amarnath who was Asstt. Sub-Inspector of Police, has fabricated the entire case. And, the learned Magistrate as well as the learned Addl. Sessions Judge both have failed to understand the interest of the Police Officer, and without understanding the actual nature and the circumstances of the case in which Jagdish Prasad has been implicated, framed charge under Section 406, Indian Penal Code. This is nothing but abuse of the process of court. This Court in such matters, should interfere in the interest of justice. 6. The petition is, therefore, allowed. The charge framed against Jagdish Prasad petition under Section 406, Indian Penal Code, is set aside, and he is hereby discharged.Petition Allowed. *******