JUDGMENT : This Criminal Revision under Sections 397 read with 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 is preferred for quashing the order dated 30-12-11 passed by 1 Additional Sessions Judge, Gwalior in Criminal Revision No. 170/09 reversing the order dated 19-1-09 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gwalior in Criminal Case No. 13451/06, State of M.P. Vs. Prem Sharma, whereby the petitioner herein/accused has been discharged from the offence punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468 and 471 of IPC and remanded the matter back to the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gwalior for reconsideration of framing the charge against the petitioner herein/accused. 2. The relevant facts for adjudication of this case are that the respondent No. 1 herein/complainant, Shivprakash Mishra filed a written complaint on 26-9-04 at Police Station, Gole Ka Mandir, District Gwalior alleging that the petitioner herein who is Prem Sharma s/o Baldev Raj Sharma got the job on the post of Technical Assistant in the Lakshmi Bai National Institute of Physical Education, Gwalior (for short 'LNIPE') on the basis of Higher Secondary School Certificate issued by the Board of Secondary Education, Madhya Pradesh, Bhopal in favour of one Shiv Prasad Mishra s/o Baladeen Mishra with the help of the officials of the LNIPE and continuously doing the job in the name of that person whereas the original Shiv Prasad Mishra s/o Baladeen Mishra is working as Conductor in the Madhya Pradesh Road Transport Corporation, Gwalior (for short 'MPSRTC'). The complaint was enquired into and a case was registered on 11 -10-04 at Crime No. 369/04 under Sections 420,467,468 and 471 of IPC against the petitioner herein/accused, Prem Sharma alias Shiv Prasad Mishra. After completing the investigation, a charge-sheet was submitted on 16-11-06 before the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Gwalior against the present petitioner for the offence punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468 and 471 of IPC which was registered as Criminal Case No. 13451/06. 3. The learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gwalior after considering the material placed on record found that prima facie no case is made out against the accused and, therefore, discharged him from the offence punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468 and 471 of IPC. Being aggrieved thereof, the respondent No. 1 herein/complainant/Shivprakash Mishra preferred a revision. 3. The learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gwalior after considering the material placed on record found that prima facie no case is made out against the accused and, therefore, discharged him from the offence punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468 and 471 of IPC. Being aggrieved thereof, the respondent No. 1 herein/complainant/Shivprakash Mishra preferred a revision. The Revisional Court vide the impugned order dated 30-12-11 allowed the revision and remitted the matter back to the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gwalior" for reconsideration of the matter of framing charge against the accused. Challenging the aforesaid remand order, this revision petition is preferred by the petitioner herein/accused. 4. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner herein/accused challenged the propriety and legality of the impugned order on the following grounds:- (a) That, the respondent No. 1 herein/complainant has no right to prefer the revision against the order dated 19-1-09 passed by the ACJM, Gwalior in Criminal Case No. 13451/06; (b) From the entire prosecution evidence collected during the course of investigation, no case under Sections 420, 467, 468 and 471 of EPC is made out against the petitioner herein/accused as it has never been stated by the prosecution that the petitioner ever created any kind of forged document/marks-sheet. (c) The alleged forged marks-sheet has not been seized and produced before the Court and, therefore, in the absence of the aforesaid document, no case under Sections 420, 467, 468 and 471 of IPC is made out. In this regard, learned Counsel placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in the case of Mangilal Agarwal Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh through P.S., Kotwali, Dewas, 2012 Cri.LR (MP) (d) The respondent No. 1/complainant also worked in the LNIPE and retired from service in the year 2000 but he never made any complaint earlier against the petitioner before any authority; (e) No authorised officer on the behalf of LNIPE filed any complaint against the petitioner; and lastly, learned Counsel drawn attention of this Court to the voters list (Annexure P-3) and submitted that the petitioner is Shiv Prasad s/o Baladeen Mishra as mentioned in the voters list. 5. 5. Learned Public Prosecutor argued in support of the impugned order and submitted that the petitioner is Prem Sharma s/o Baldev Rao Sharma and got the job in LNIPE on the basis of marks-sheet of one Shiv Prasad s/o Baladeen Mishra and now posing himself as Shiv Prasad s/o Baladeen Mishra. Further, the original Shiv Prasad Mishra s/o Baladeen Mishra is another person who got job in the MPSRTC on the basis of the same marks-sheet of Higher Secondary School Certificate Examination issued by the Board of Secondary Education, Madhya Pradesh, Bhopal. 6. The respondent No. 1 submitted that the petitioner is an established criminal who has used the marks-sheet/certificate of Shiv Prasad Mishra who is an employee of the MPSRTC and resident of Jawahar Colony, Kampoo, Gwalior. When he came to know the said fact then, he made a complaint to the officers of LNIPE but they did not take any action against the petitioner. Thereafter, original Shiv Prasad Mishra made a complaint against the petitioner herein and filed the photo-copy of the marks-sheet/certificate. It is further submitted that the present petitioner has also got his name included in the voters list by fraud and misrepresentation and the proceedings for cancellation of inclusion of his name in the voters list is pending before the Competent Authority. It is further submitted that the petitioner has not only changed his name but also changed the name of his father. His real father's name is Baldev Raj Sharma who owned a house in his name at Phalka Bazar, Gwalior wherein the present petitioner is residing. Ashok Bhardwaj who is the real brother-in-law (husband of the younger sister) of the petitioner also made a complaint against the activities of the petitioner. Further, the petitioner was a regular student of M.P.Ed., at Bhopal and at the same time, he was also a regular employee of LNIPE during the period of 2 years. In such circumstances, how a man can do regular service at Gwalior and regularly study at Bhopal. The real name of the petitioner is Prem Sharma who never passed the Higher Secondary School Certificate Examination from the Board of Secondary Education, Madhya Pradesh, Bhopal. 7. I have considered the rival contentions of the learned Counsel for the parties as well as the respondent No. 1 and perused the record. 8. The real name of the petitioner is Prem Sharma who never passed the Higher Secondary School Certificate Examination from the Board of Secondary Education, Madhya Pradesh, Bhopal. 7. I have considered the rival contentions of the learned Counsel for the parties as well as the respondent No. 1 and perused the record. 8. According to the provisions of Sections 227 and 228 of Cr.PC, it is for the Trial Court to consider the material available on record with the object that if it is not rebutted, then whether the accused can be convicted for a particular offence or not. By considering such material, if the accused is convicted for that offence, then charge for that offence shall be framed. 9. In Supdt. & Remembrancer of Legal Affairs, West Bengal Vs. Kumar Bhunja and others, AIR 1980 SC 52 , a three-Judge Bench of the Supreme Court held as under :- "18. It may be remembered that the case was at the stage of framing charges; the prosecution evidence had not yet commenced. The Magistrate had, therefore, to consider the above question on a general consideration of the materials placed before him by the Investigating Police Officer. At this stage, as was pointed out by this Court in State of Bihar Vs. Ramesh Singh, AIR 1977 SC 2018 , the truth, veracity and effect of the evidence which the prosecutor proposes to adduce are not to be meticulously judged. The standard of test, proof and judgment which is to be applied finally before finding the accused guilty or otherwise, is not exactly to be applied at the stage of Section 227 or 228 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. At this stage, even a very strong suspicion found upon materials before the Magistrate, which leads him to form a presumptive opinion as to the existence of the factual ingredients constituting the offence alleged; may justify the framing of charge against the accused in respect of the commission of that offence." (Emphasis supplied) 10. The Apex Court in the case of Niranjan Singh Karam Singh Punjabi Vs. The Apex Court in the case of Niranjan Singh Karam Singh Punjabi Vs. Jitendr Bhimraj Bijja and others, AIR 1990 SC 1962 , held as under :- "It seems well-settled that as the Sections 227-228, stage, i.e., stage of framing the charge, the Court is required to evaluate the material and documents on record with a view to finding out if the facts emerging therefrom taken at their face value disclose the existence of all the ingredients constituting the alleged offence. The Court may for this limited purpose sift the evidence as it cannot be expected even at that initial stage to accept all that the prosecution states as gospel truth even if it is opposed to common sense or the broad probabilities of the case." 11. I have carefully perused the statements of Shivprakash Mishra, the respondent No. 1 and the original person, Shiv Prasad Mishra, the complaint of Ashok Bharadwaj and other material collected during the investigation. It is revealed from that the present petitioner's real name is Prem Sharma s/o Baldev Rao Sharma. The elder brother's name of Prem Sharma is Subhash Sharma who is engaged in the vocation of tyre puncture repair work. At the shop of Subhash Sharma, the real Shiv Prasad Mishra s/o Baladeen Mishra came in contact with the present petitioner. In the year 1974, the marks-sheet of Higher Secondary School Examination of real Shiv Prasad Mishra, which was passed by him in the year 1972 was seen and taken by Prem Sharma and thereafter, he never returned back and, therefore, real Shiv Prasad Mishra obtained duplicate marks-sheet from the Board of Secondary Education, Madhya Pradesh, Bhopal and thereafter got service in MPSRTC. After death of his father on 26-4-2004, he came to know that Prem Sharma got service in LNIPE on the basis of his marks-sheet of Higher Secondary School Examination and serving there with his name and, hence, he made a complaint with the LNIPE. Shiv Prasad Mishra in his another statement recorded on 11-10-2004 stated the details for showing that the present petitioner is Prem Sharma s/o Baldev Rao Sharma and is serving in the LNIPE with the name of Shiv Prasad Mishra. The police sized the complaint of Ashok Bharadwaj who is real brother-in-law (husband of younger sister) of the present petitioner for proving the fact that the petitioner is not Shiv Prasad Mishra but Prem Sharma. The police sized the complaint of Ashok Bharadwaj who is real brother-in-law (husband of younger sister) of the present petitioner for proving the fact that the petitioner is not Shiv Prasad Mishra but Prem Sharma. During the investigation, the police sought information from MPSRTC by letter dated 5-10-04 regarding Shiv Prasad Mishra and it was clarified by the Senior Depot Manager, MPSRTC, Gwalior that Shiv Prasad Mishra s/o Baladeen Mishra's date of birth is 19-7-1953 and is working as Conductor in the Corporation. During the investigation, it was also found that the present petitioner is working with the name of Shiv Prasad Mishra s/o Baladeen Mishra in LNIPE and his date of birth is the same as that of original Shiv Prasad Mishra, i.e., 19-7-1953. At the stage of framing charge, the Court is not expected to go into deep and weigh the evidence as is done in trial. 12. Since the offence under Sections 420, 467, 468 and 471 of IPC was registered on the basis of complaint lodged by the respondent No. 1 herein/complainant against the accused, therefore, in my considered opinion, he had a locus standi to file the revision petition against the order dated 19-1-09 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate by which the accused has been discharged (K. Pandurangam etc. Vs. S.S.R. Velusamy and another, AIR 2003 SC 3318 , referred to). 13. In the back drop of the aforesaid and on the basis of the material placed on record, the other grounds raised by the learned Counsel for the petitioner have no force, firstly; the photo-copy of marks-sheet of Higher Secondary School Certificate Examination, 1972 on the basis of which the present petitioner got employment is on the record; secondly ; the original Shiv Prasad Mishra and Ashok Bharadwaj who is real brother-in-law of the present petitioner have made complaints against the petitioner to the Vice Chancellor, LNIPE, the copies thereof are on record and lastly; the respondent No. 1 has submitted photo-copies of the complainants (Annexure R-1-2 and Annexure R-1-3), which show that the complainant made a complaint to the Vice Chancellor of LNIPE. 14. 14. In the case of Mangilal Agarwal (supra), the basic dispute pertains to the fact that the accused, Mangilal Agrawal's brother Narendra Kumar Agarwal had formed a colony at Agarwal Nagar, A.B. Road, Dewas and plot No. 23 of this colony had been purchased by the complainant, Dilip Kumar Patidar by registered sale deed on 9-1-2003 and he had been handed over the possession of the same. Thereafter, Mangilal had in conspiracy and with fraudulent intention got the power of attorney (Aam Mukhtyar Nama) of Narendra Kumar Agarwal prepared in his own name and thereafter, sold the same piece of plot No. 23 to one Nandlal Choudhary by registered sale deed on 16-6-2004. Under these circumstances, the police registered a case under Section 420 of IPC against Mangilal and filed the charge-sheet. The Trial Court has also framed the charge under Section 420 of IPC but at the fag end of trial, the Trial Court framed charge for the offence punishable under Sections 467, 468 and 471 of IPC. This Court observed that the original power of attorney which was allegedly to be fraudulent had never been produced before the Court and, therefore, in the absence of the alleged forged document, the charge under Sections 467, 468 and 471 of IPC liable to be set aside and held as under:- "14. Then under these circumstances, I find that the learned Judge of the Trial Court on emergent facts merely suspected that the second transaction of sale by the accused was fraudulent and thus, the complainant had been cheated and situation emergent rendered the power of attorney also to be fraudulent; however, even if these facts are taken into consideration and alteration/addition of charges under Sections 467, 468 and 471 of the IPC are attracted then under the circumstances, their imposition would have been justified only if the fraudulent power of attorney was available on record to draw such an inference. All that what was available was a copy of the power of attorney, I find that it is here, that the learned Judge of the Trial Court has erred when there were no documents before it or other evidence which justified the framing of these additional charges. Mere suspicion and probabilities would not be sufficient for framing of charges. All that what was available was a copy of the power of attorney, I find that it is here, that the learned Judge of the Trial Court has erred when there were no documents before it or other evidence which justified the framing of these additional charges. Mere suspicion and probabilities would not be sufficient for framing of charges. Then under these circumstances, I find that the impugned order needs to be set aside only to the extent of framing of charges under Sections 467, 468 and 471 of the IPC, and it is hereby set aside. It is however, made clear that the Trial Court for offence under Section 420 of the IPC shall go on and in case the complainant decides to file fresh proceedings with proper documents for the other offences the observations made in this judgment shall not stand in the way of the complainant." 15. In the case in hand, according to the prosecution case, the petitioner is one Prem Sharma s/o Baldev Raj Sharma who had not passed the Higher Secondary School Examination in the year 1972, however, in order to show his eligibility, he fraudulently or dishonestly submitted false particulars and Higher Secondary Examination marks-sheet of Shiv Prasad Mishra s/o Baladeen Mishra and signed in an assumed name without any authority and have procured employment in the name of Shiv Prasad Mishra s/o Baladeen Mishra and continuously doing the job in the name of the person. 16. In the case of Central Bureau of Investigation, Hyderabad Vs. K. Narayana Rao, 2012 AIR SCW 5139, the Apex Court considered its earlier authorities about the scope of Sections 227 and 228 of Cr.PC, and held that for framing of charge, a roving enquiry in pros and cons of matter and weighing of evidence as is done in trial is not permissible at this stage. The charge has to be framed if Court feels that there is strong suspicion that accused has committed offence. Thus, even if there is a strong suspicion which leads the Court to think that there is ground for presuming that the accused has committed an offence, a charge can be framed. 17. The charge has to be framed if Court feels that there is strong suspicion that accused has committed offence. Thus, even if there is a strong suspicion which leads the Court to think that there is ground for presuming that the accused has committed an offence, a charge can be framed. 17. Resultantly, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the settled legal position and for the reasons given hereinabove, I do not find any infirmity and illegality in the impugned order that may call for any interference in exercise of the revisional jurisdiction under Section 397 read with 401 of Cr.PC. This revision petition is devoid of merit and is therefore, dismissed.