LAW FOR ALL

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: Sections 244, 245, 246 - Official complaint from Registrar General of High Court stating that the accused persons were guilty of using a fabricated and forged letter in the court with active connivance and conspiracy on their part - Summons issued - Application under s.245(2) Cr.P.C. rejected - Charges framed - Correctness of - Held: The charges framed clearly premature - There should be evidence before framing the charges - Opportunity to cross examine is lost - Order framing the charge quashed - Matter to go back to Trial Court - Prosecution to offer witnesses under s.244(1) Cr.P.C. and opportunity to cross-examine - Only thereafter Trial Court would proceed to decide as to whether the charges to be framed or not - Penal Code, 1860, Sections 177, 181, 182, 192, 196, 199, 209, 466, 468, 471, 474. The Registrar General of High Court made a complaint to the effect that the accused persons were guilty of using a fabricated and forged letter in the court with active connivance and conspiracy on their part. The CJM took cognizance of the complaint and ordered issue of summons. Accused approached the High Court by way of writ petition and it was dismissed. SLP was filed in Supreme Court and it was dismissed as premature. Appellant thereafter appeared before the CJM, obtained bail and moved an application for discharge. The trial court dismissed the application and proceeded to frame charges. Appellant approached the High Court by filing a writ petition which was dismissed. Hence the appeal. = AJOY KUMAR GHOSE .... APPELLANT Versus STATE OF JHARKHAND & ANR. .... RESPONDENTS = 2009( March. Part ) http://judis.nic.in/supremecourt/filename=34080