JUDGMENT 1. - In this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition filed under Section 482, Cr.P.C. the petitioner is challenging order dated 2.11.2010 passed by Special Judge SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act Cases, Jodhpur in Criminal Revision No. 26/2010, by which, the revisional Court upheld the order dated 18.2.2010 passed by Addl. Chief Judl. Magistrate No. 2, Jodhpur in Criminal Regular Case No. 528/2009, whereby, charges under, Sections 420, 467, 468 and 471 I.P.C. were ordered to be framed against the petitioner. 2. As per fact of the case, respondent No. 2 filed complaint against the petitioner at Police Station Pratap Nagar- (Jodhpur) in which it is alleged that his wife Anita started a firm in the name of Jodhpur Computer Services in the year 1985, thereafter, due to increase in business of the firm, in the year 1999, two new partners were introduced viz., Sushil Choudhary and Sanjana Purohit and a partnership deed was executed for the said purpose and duly registered. 3. After registration of the partnership deed, a branch of the firm was opened at Kamla Nehru Nagar, Jodhpur and all expenditure was borne by the Jodhpur Computer Service. With passage of time due to increase of the turn-over of the firm the petitioner developed ill will and, for the purpose of committing forgery, he approached Sanjan Purohit on 4.4.2002 and asked her to give a letter head of the firm duly signed by her for the purpose of getting the title and logo of the firm. As per allegation in the complaint Sanjana Purohit gave blank letter-head to the petitioner who was partner of the firm and thereafter the petitioner used the signed blank letter head while fabricating receipt in back date, in which, it is declared that computer and furniture and other articles of the branch are sold to him. 4. As per allegation of the F.I.R., Sanjana Purohit has neither sold those properties nor she has any right to do so because she was partner of the firm and rent of the branch was also paid by the partnership firm. 4. As per allegation of the F.I.R., Sanjana Purohit has neither sold those properties nor she has any right to do so because she was partner of the firm and rent of the branch was also paid by the partnership firm. Therefore it is prayed in the F.I.R. that the petitioner has committed offence under Sections 420, 467, 468 and 471, I.P.C. After investigation in the matter, the police filed charge-sheet for offences under Sections 420 and 406, I.P.C. Thereafter application was moved by the complainant under Section 190(1)(b), Cr.P.C. with the prayer to, take cognizance against the petitioner under Sections 467, 468 and 471, I.P.C. also and under Section 120B, I.P.C. against one Mahesh Manglani. 5. The trial Court rejected the application for taking recognizance against Mahesh Manglani for offence tinder Section 120B, I.P.C. However, the trial Court took cognizance against the petitioner under Sections 467, 468 and 471 I.P.C. The revision petition filed against the said order was also dismissed by the revisional Court. Thereafter, at the stage of framing charge, learned trial Court after hearing arguments discharged the petitioner from offence under Section 406, I.P.C. and directed to frame charge against the petitioner for offences under Sections 420, 467, 468 and 471, I.P.C. 6. Against the order of framing charge dated 18.2.2010 a revision petition was filed and said revision petition was also dismissed by the Special Judge SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act Cases, Jodhpur vide order dated 2.11.2010. In this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. the petitioner is challenging both orders dated 2.11.2010 as well as order dated 18.2.2010 passed by the trial Court. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that charge of forgery is not made out because the original documents has to be brought on record but the original document is not on record, therefore, no offence is made out. Further, it is submitted that no offence under Sections 467, 468 and 471, I.P.C. is made out because it is admitted position of the prosecution that signatures on the so called receipts are those of Sanjana Purohit, therefore, the order impugned may be quashed. 8. Further, it is submitted that no offence under Sections 467, 468 and 471, I.P.C. is made out because it is admitted position of the prosecution that signatures on the so called receipts are those of Sanjana Purohit, therefore, the order impugned may be quashed. 8. The complainant himself is present in the Court and submits that learned trial Court has considered all aspects of the matter for the purpose of framing charge and earlier order of taking cognizance under Sections 467, 468 and 471, I.P.C. was challenged by the petitioner by was of filing revision but the same was dismissed, therefore, as per material available on record the offence is made out. It is also submitted by the complainant that original receipt is in the civil suit filed by the petitioner, therefore, it cannot be said that no offence is made out. 9. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and learned Public Prosecutor, I have perused the impugned orders. 10. In my opinion, scope of interference under Section 482, I.P.C. is, very limited. Both the Courts below after taking into consideration entire evidence on record gave the finding that there is material on record against the petitioner for committing offence under Sections 420, 467, 468 and 471, I.P.C. In this view of the matter, it is not a case in which the limited jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482, Cr.P.C. is required to be exercised. It appears from perusal of both the orders impugned that there is ample material on record to proceed against the petitioner for commission of the alleged offences by the prosecution, therefore, there exists no reason no interfere in the matter when prima facie case is made out on the basis of the material on record. 11. Consequently, this petition under Section 482, Cr.P.C. is dismissed.Petition dismissed. *******