JUDGMENT 1. - Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor. 2. This petition is directed against the order dated 19.4.1994 passed by the learned Additional Munsif and Judicial Magistrate No. 3, Jodhpur whereby he framed charges against the petitioners for offences punishable under sections 420 & 120-B of the IPC. 3. The facts of the case so far they are relevant for the disposal of this petition, are summarised below:- On 1.10.1989 Surendra Kumar Vishnoi, Assistant Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Jodhpur submitted a report in writing at Police Station, Udaimandir, Jodhpur. On the basis of that report the police registered a criminal case No. 308/89. It was alleged in the Report submitted by Shri Vishnoi that Naveen Grah Nirman Sahakari Samiti, Jodhpur had purchased land situated in front of the Circuit House, Jodhpur and at different places and received various amounts from several people for allotment of plots. Kun,dan Mal Jain, who was an office bearer of Naveen Grah Nirman Sahakari Samiti, Jodhpur forced the people, who were intending to purchase plots to deposit Rs. 4,000/- in the account of Rajiv & Co. and those who did not comply with this demand were not allotted plots, According to Report of Shri Vishnoi the amount of Rs. 4,000/- per applicant had been received in an illegal manner. It was alleged that the office bearers of the above named Sahakari Samiti, conspired with M/s. Rajiv & Co. forged documents for the purpose of receiving amounts in an illegal manner and on conducting the inquiry, it was found that the offences under sections 467, 468, 471 (Sr 420 had been committed. The police after investigation submitted a final report No. 131/90 and gave the opinion that no offence was committed by any person. The learned Additional Munsif and Judicial Magistrate No. 1, Jodhpur issued notice to the complainant and the complainant submitted a protest petition in the Court against the final report submitted by police. On 26.6.1992, the case was transferred to the Court of learned Additional Munsif and Judicial Magistrate No. 3, Jodhpur. After hearing the parties, the learned Additional Munsif and Judicial Magistrate No. 3, Jodhpur by order dated 28.9.1993 declined to accept the final report submitted by the police and took cognizance of the offences under sections 420 & 120-B IPC against the accused (petitioners). After hearing the parties, the learned Additional Munsif and Judicial Magistrate No. 3, Jodhpur by order dated 28.9.1993 declined to accept the final report submitted by the police and took cognizance of the offences under sections 420 & 120-B IPC against the accused (petitioners). After appearance of the accused persons, copies of the documents were supplied to them. Arguments and charge were heard and on 19.4.1994 charges under sections 420 & 120-B IPC were framed against the accused persons. The accused persons pleaded not guilty to the charge and the case was adjourned for evidence. 4. The accused (petitioners) moved this Court for the purpose of quashing the charges framed against them. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioners have not committed any offence, and therefore, the proceedings initiated against them by the learned Additional Munsif and Judicial Magistrate and the trial commenced by framing charges against them is without sufficient grounds and deserves to be quashed. On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor has supported the order passed by the learned Additional Munsif and Judicial Magistrate and prayed that this petition should be dismissed, because there are sufficient grounds to frame the charge against the petitioners. 6. During the investigation, the police has examined several witnesses u /s. 161 Cr.P.C. Kirodi Mal Mehta gave statement to the effect that in December, 1990 he came to know that Navin Grah Nirman Sahakari Samiti was booking the plots through Mod Singh after taking a sum of Rs. 1,011/- from each applicant. In his statement, he named several persons, who had deposited the booking amount. Kirodi Mal Mehta further added that he paid the amount by cheque, dated 16.12.1980 to Mod Singh and other persons also made the payment to Mod Singh and at that time Mod Singh told the depositors that when Kundan Mal Jain, the President of the Sahakari Samiti would come, the receipt for the amount as well as form of member-ship would be sent to the applicants, Kirodi Mal Mehta further revealed that the cheque issued by him was Account Payee and the amount thereof was deposited in the account of Navin Grah Nirman Sahakari Samiti in Punjab National Bank, Ratanada, Jodhpur, but the receipt for that amount was not given to him. He was advised to meet Kundan Mal Jain and in October, 1981 he came to know that Kundan Mal Jain was taking additional amount from the applicants and when met Kundan Mal Jain on 6.10.1981, he asked him to deposit Rs. 4,000/- in the account of Rajiv & Co. and threatened if the amount would not be deposited, the receipt for the earlier amount of Rs. 1,011/ - would not be given to him. In his statement Shri Kirodi Mal Mehta has supported the allegations made in the FIR lodged by Assistant Registrar, Co-operative Societies. 7. I have perused the statements of Gajendra Singh Mehta, Sampatraj, Manmal Lodha, Suresh Sankhlecha, La khpat Raj Mehta, Narendra Mehta and Naveen Ram Dangi and also perused other documents, which are on record. On a careful consideration of the evidence on record, it is difficult to say that there were no grounds for framing Charge against the petitioners. 8. In view of above reasons, this petition has no force. It deserves to be rejected and is hereby rejected. A copy of the order shall be sent to the learned Additional Munsif and Judicial Magistrate No. 3, Jodhpur with the record of the case. It is expected that he would expedite the trial.Revision dismissed. *******