JUDGMENT 1. - Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bikaner, after hearing the petitioner and the prosecution, framed charge under section 468 r/w 420 IPC against the petitioner on the basis of a charge-sheet field by police against him. A revision was filed before learned Sessions Judge, Bikaner who dismissed it. Hence the petition under section 482 Cr.P.C. was filed. 2. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Public Prosecutor. 3. The case of prosecution is that the petitioner was a patwari of Ramsar. Bhagirath was a landless person and was chosen to be a person to whom land was to be allotted in Ramsar Scheme. He had submitted his application before Colonisation Commissioner. The Colonisation Commissioner after preparing a list sent the same to the Tehsildar, Bikaner along with applications including the application of Bhagirath. This list was sent to the patwari to verify and get the photographs pasted. on the applications. Name of Bhagirath appeared in the list and the accused-petitioner knew him very well. But he dishonestly wanted that Bhagirath should not be allotted land and wanted that the land be allotted to Rewatram who had not even filed application. The petitioner, while verifying, pasted the photograph of Rewatram on the application of Bhagirath by committing forgery for the purpose of cheating. When Bhagirath complainant went to the petitioner he was informed that his name was not found in the list of such eligible persons whom land was to be allotted. When he came to know about this cheating and forgery he filed a complaint before Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, Bikaner who forwarded the same under section 156(3) Cr.P.C. FIR was registered and after investigation the petitioner was challaned and as stated above charge has been framed against him. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the name of Bhagirath Khati appears at serial No. 28 in the list which was forwarded to the petitioner and that he has not committed any forgery. The application for allotment of land mentions the number as 278119 and bears the photograph of one Rewatram. His name is shown as Bhagirath son of Sriram Khati resident of Ramsar, but in the verification his name is shown as Bhagirath Rewatram Khati of village Ramsar, while in the village there is no person named as Bhagirath Rewatram son of Sriram Khati by caste. His name is shown as Bhagirath son of Sriram Khati resident of Ramsar, but in the verification his name is shown as Bhagirath Rewatram Khati of village Ramsar, while in the village there is no person named as Bhagirath Rewatram son of Sriram Khati by caste. The argument of the learned counsel that list mentions the name of Bhagirath sone of Sriram Khati of Ramsar at No. 28 is a subject-matter of trial and presently there are circumstances in which the charge cannot be said to have been framed against the petitioner without any evidence. The settled law is that a charge can be framed even on the basis of strong suspicious circumstances. Here, in this case, it was Bhagirath Jat who was selected but it is alleged that it was the petitioner who wanted the land to be allotted to Rewatram and he, by committing forgery, made Rewatram eligible to get the land allotted. I do not find any ground to quash the charge. 5. The petition under Section 482 Cr. P.C. is hereby dismissed. The record of the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate be sent back immediately.Petition dismissed. *******