BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J. ( 1 ) I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned counsel for the CBI. ( 2 ) THIS is a petition directed against the order on charge dated 26. 7. 1999 as well as the charge framed on the same date itself. The order on charge was passed by the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Delhi. The charge framed against the petitioner reads as under:-"charge i, R. K. Gauba, Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Delhi hereby charge you Prem Kumar parmar S/o Sohan Lal Parmar, Managing Director of M/s Parmar Alam Pvt. Ltd. Bahadurgarh, Distt. Rohtak (Haryana) R/o 6a Pocket B, D. D. A. Flats (SFS)Vikaspur Extension, New Delhi, M/s Parmar Alam Pvt. Ltd. , Vilage Sankhol, bahadurgarh, Distt. Rohtak (Haryana) registered Office 6a, Pocket B, D. D. A. Flats (SFS) Vikaspuri Extension, New Delhi. That you P. K. Parmar during the year 1987-88 at Delhi and other places agreed with M/s Parmar Alam Pvt. Ltd. , and hetched a criminal conspiracy, the object of which was to do illegal act to cheat the officers of Head/branch office of Punjab National Bank, Rajendra Nagar Branch, Delhi by dishonestly and fraudulently inducing the said officers to sanction a term loan of Rs. 49. 65 lakh on the basis of false information particulars/ false documents i. e. (i) Application dated 6. 10. 87 (ii) Bogus Balance Sheets (iii) Profit and Loss account (iv) Depreciation Chart (v) Fixed Assets (vi) List of Sundry Creditors of fictitious firm M/s Punjab Phosphate Pvt. Ltd. , submitted in the bank and dishonestly obtain/withdraw the loan amount from the Bank to the tune of Rs 34,81,210. 40 (which is still outstanding with interest) thereby you committed offences punishable U/s 120b r/w Section 420, 471 r/w Section 468 of IPC, within my cognizance. Secondly you both during the aforesaid time and place cheated the P. N. B. Rajendra Nagar Branch, Delhi for a total sum of Rs 34,81,210. 40 by dishonestly submitting the bogus Balance Sheet, Profit and Loss Account, Depreciation Chart, fixed Assets, list of Sundry Creditors of Fictitious firm M/s Punjab Phosphate pvt. Ltd. to be used for the purpose of cheating, used them as genuine, which you knew or had reason to believe to be false documents and thereby committed offence punishable u/s 471 r/w Section 468 of IPC within my cognizance. Ltd. to be used for the purpose of cheating, used them as genuine, which you knew or had reason to believe to be false documents and thereby committed offence punishable u/s 471 r/w Section 468 of IPC within my cognizance. And I hereby direct you be tried by this court for the above noted charges. " ( 3 ) THE learned counsel for the petitioner has, in the course of arguments on 14. 9. 2006, indicated that the entire loan amount taken from the Bank (Punjab national Bank, New Rajinder Nagar Branch) has been realised and there is nothing due from the petitioner company i. e. M/s Parmar Alum Pvt. Ltd. The learned counsel for the CBI submitted a report dated 14. 12. 2006 with regard to the verification regarding realisation of the loan amount by M/s Parmar Alum Pvt. Ltd in RC5/89/eou-IV/cbi/new DELHI. It is stated in the said report that a verification was carried out from the Punjab National Bank, New Rajender Nagar branch and that it has been confirmed by the bank that M/s Parmar Alum Pvt. Ltd has paid the loan amount and nothing is pending against the "firm". The letter from the Bank and the statement of account which was obtained from the bank are enclosed with the report and the same are on record. This, according to the learned counsel for the petitioner, shows that the bank is not interested in pursuing the matter against the bank inasmuch as the entire amount has been recovered. According to the petitioner, this is also indicative of the fact that the petitioner never wanted to cheat the bank and, in any event, the petitioner had provided sufficient collateral security to recover the entire amount of the loan. He submits that the offence punishable under Section 420 is also compoundable. But, there is no representative from the Bank present in court from whom it could be ascertained as to whether the Bank is willing to compound the offence. ( 4 ) AS regards the offences under Section 468 and 471 IPC, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that since the intention of the petitioner was not to cheat and he has not cheated the bank, there is no question of framing charges under these Sections. He submitted that the fact that the loan amount stands realised, itself indicates the petitioner's bona fide intention. He submitted that the fact that the loan amount stands realised, itself indicates the petitioner's bona fide intention. Accordingly, he submits that the charges framed be set aside and the petitioner be discharged of the offences. ( 5 ) MR Tiwari, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the CBI, submitted that first of all, the Bank has not come forward as yet to submit that it is willing to compound the offence under Section 420 IPC. Secondly, even if it is compoundable, the other offences under Sections 468 and 471 IPC are not compoundable. In this regard, he has placed before this Court a decision of the supreme Court in Inspector of Police, CBI v. B. Raja Gopal and Others: 2003 SCC (Cri) 1238 which does support the contention raised by Mr Tiwari. He has further indicated that the charge framed is appropriately framed inasmuch as on the first count, the charge has been framed under Section 120b, 420, 471 read with Section 468 IPC. In the second count, the charge has been framed under section 471 read with Section 468. Therefore, according to Mr Tiwari, even if the offence under Section 420 IPC is to be considered to be compoundable, since a charge under Section 471 read with Section 468 IPC has been independently framed, the trial has to continue with regard to these charges. ( 6 ) I have examined the material placed before me as well as the order on charge and the submissions made by the counsel for the parties. There is material to show that certain documents were filed before the Bank at the time of obtaining of the loan. According to the prosecution, these documents were submitted by the petitioner. However, according to the petitioner, it is submitted that these are photo copies and not original documents and they have not been submitted by the petitioner. This, of course, is a matter of evidence and trial. Secondly, it is submitted by the prosecution that the documents contained false particulars and information and some of the documents themselves are bogus and fabricated. According to Mr Tiwari, even the report of the chartered Accountant is of a firm which is not in existence. It is the case of the prosecution that these documents were submitted for obtaining the loan from the Bank with an intention to cheat the Bank and defraud the Bank. According to Mr Tiwari, even the report of the chartered Accountant is of a firm which is not in existence. It is the case of the prosecution that these documents were submitted for obtaining the loan from the Bank with an intention to cheat the Bank and defraud the Bank. Therefore, according to him, even if the offence of cheating itself is compounded by the bank, the offence under Section 468 IPC stands committed, if the allegations are proved. The learned counsel for the petitioner, on the other hand, submitted that the Bank loan was obtained on the basis of collateral security and fixed deposits which were in excess of the loan amount. He also submitted that the loan was extended to the petitioner on the basis of the petitioner's good credit rating and because the loan itself was a deposit oriented loan, and, therefore, the petitioner had no intention to cheat and even the offences under section 468 read with Section 471 IPC cannot be made out. ( 7 ) HOWEVER, according to me, these are matters of evidence and it is only in evidence that it can be established whether the petitioner had or did not have the intention to cheat. That has to come about in the course of the trial. At the stage of framing of charges, if there is a grave suspicion on the basis of materials on record that the offence is made out, then a charge can be framed. I find that it is on this basis that the charge has been framed and I see no reason to interfere with the same. This revision petition is dismissed.