Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2001 DIGILAW 751 (MP)

Manoharlal v. State of M. P.

2001-10-16

S.S.SARAF

body2001
JUDGMENT This petition under section 482, CrPC, has been directed for quashing charges framed against the petitioners for offences under section 454 and 380, IPC and issuing direction to hear arguments before framing of charges after perusing the case diary. The petitioners have been prosecuted for offences under section 454 and 380, IPC. Shri Ashok Lalwani, learned counsel for the petitioners, contends that there was a dispute of civil nature between the parties. However, the criminal proceedings have also been initiated against the petitioners for offences punishable under sections 454 and 380, IPC, on the basis of a written report filed by the complainant-Kishanchand Thawardas on 19.11.1993. It is also alleged that the parties entered into an agreement (Annexure A-1). After the investigation was concluded, the investigating officer found that no prima facie case was made out against the petitioners. Subsequently, the SDO (Police) further investigated the matter and after the alleged investigation, filed a charge sheet for offence as above against the petitioners. It has also been contended that as per the investigation conducted at the first instance, no prima facie offence was made out against the petitioners. The petitioners, therefore, filed an application under section 91 of CrPC for production of the case diary before the charges were framed. The application has been rejected by the learned trial Court. A revision petition having been filed against the order of the learned Magistrate rejecting their application, has also been dismissed. The petitioners have, therefore, filed the ·present petition invoking inherent jurisdiction of this Court. There is sufficient material on record to prima facie establish that during the initial investigation, it was found that no offence is made out against the petitioners and therefore the final report No. 1/93 was submitted by the investigating officer. However, the SDO (Police) subsequently again investigated the offence and after concluding the investigation, a charge sheet was filed against the petitioners for offences as above. The charges for offences as above have been framed against both the petitioners. Undisputedly, the learned Magistrate did not peruse the case diary before framing of charges against the petitioners as according to him, it was not the legal requirement to go through the documents intended to be filed by the accused. At the stage of framing of charges, the trial Court is required to assess whether there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. At the stage of framing of charges, the trial Court is required to assess whether there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. The trial Court framed the charges against the petitioners on the basis of the material produced before it which was collected during the subsequent investigation as alleged by the learned counsel for the petitioners. The case diary which contains the material during the initial investigation also belongs to the prosecuting agency. The trial Court observed that at the stage of framing of charges, it was not necessary to peruse the documents filed by the accused. As pointed out earlier, the case diary which was requested to be called for was not the document in possession of the petitioners. Since the allegations made by the complainant and other prosecution witnesses during the initial investigation, when they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety, do not prima facie constitute the above offences against the petitioners as alleged by them, such material should also be considered by the trial Court before framing of charges because such material was part of the investigation. For the reasons stated above, it appears justified to quash the charges framed against the petitioners to secure the ends of justice. The petition is, therefore, allowed. The charges framed against the petitioners are quashed. It is directed that the trial Court shall consider the material including the material collected during the initial investigation afresh and then consider whether there is such ground for proceeding against the petitioners for offences as above and if it is of the opinion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against them, shall frame charges against the petitioners.