JUDGMENT 1. - The instant miscellaneous petition has been filed by the petitioner against the order dated 6.3.2010 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Anoopgarh whereby revision filed against the order dated 19.5.2008 passed; by the learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Anoopgarh in Cr. Case No. 146/2005 framing charge against the petitioner for the offence under Section 420 I.P.C., has been affirmed. 2. Counsel for the petitioner contends that in this case the alleged transaction between the complainant and the petitioner in regard to allotment of petrol pump took place in the year 1998. The complainant alleges to have advanced a sum of Rs. 6,60,000/- to the accused in the year 1998 and as per the admitted case of the complainant the accused returned back a sum of Rs. 3,30,000/- to him in the year 2000. Learned counsel contends that the petitioner is having the receipt of total repayment made by.him to the complainant. Learned counsel, however, admits that the receipt has not been taken on record by the police despite the petitioner having sent the.same to the I.O. by way of registered communication. 3. Upon a consideration of the arguments advanced at the bar and after going through the record of the case, it is evident that the receipt which the petitioner relies upon in relation to the repayment made to Nirmal Singh has to be proved on record by leading evidence and unless and until same is brought on record they cannot be relied upon for quashing the charge framed against the petitioner. At the stage of framing of charge, only the documents which are filed by the prosecution alongwith the charge sheet can be considered. On a perusal of the documents of the charge sheet, it cannot be said that the essential ingredients o he offence under Section 420 I.P.C. are not disclosed against the petitioner. 4. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the miscellaneous petition being rent' any force is dismissed. The stay application is also rejected.Petition dismissed. *******