Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 427 (MP)

Kaushlya Devi v. State of M. P.

2003-03-20

S.L.KOCHAR

body2003
JUDGMENT This Criminal Revision, has been preferred on behalf of the applicant against the order dated 24.2.2003 passed in Criminal Case No. 1187/01 by learned Judicial Magistrate, Class I Neemuch, thereby framing the charge for the offence punishable under sections 419, 420, 467, 468 and 471/34 IPC against applicant. The facts of the case, in brief, are that on 19th Oct,2000, complainant, SK Upadhyaya, Vice Principal CTC-1 C.R.P.F. Neemuch lodged a written complaint to the effect that by making forged signature, the amount of draft was withdrawn from the Bank. On the basis of the aforesaid report, police registered offence punishable under sections 420, 467,468 and 471 IPC against applicant and stepped into investigation. On investigation, it is found that one named K. Vishwambharan was Ex. Cook in CRPF in whose favour, bank draft was issued but on the basis of handwriting expert, one Vikramsingh has withdrawn money by making forged signatures from the bank. The Investigating Agency, on the report of hand-writing expert, found one Yuddhveer Singh S/o Dharam Pal Singh obtained money by making forged signature in the name of Vikram Singh hatching conspiracy with co-accused Parvindar Singh S/o Harcharar Singh and further, said Paravindar Singh entered into conspiracy with his wife, present applicant Kaushalyabai, who has transferred money to her father for purchasing tractor. As such offences have been registered against present applicant and charge-sheet has been filed. Learned trial Court, after hearing both parties, framed charges under sections 419, 420,467,468 and 471/34 IPC by the impugned order, which is under challenge. Mr. Uberai, learned Sr. Counsel appearing for the applicant submitted that applicant Kaushalya Devi is not wife of co-accused Parvinder Singh and this fact is borne out from the charge-sheet filed by the prosecution under section 173 CrPC. The applicant is the wife of Vijendrasingh Rathi. The counsel has filed certificate Annexure "C" duly issued by Deputy Commandant, CRPF Neemuch. He also putforth that only evidence against the applicant is memorandum under section 27 of the Evidence Act, in pursuance whereof there is absolutely no recovery. According to him, even if complete material available in the charge-sheet on its face value without any rebuttal by the applicant, is accepted, no prima facie case is made out worth for taking cognizance much less for framing charge for the aforesaid offences. According to him, even if complete material available in the charge-sheet on its face value without any rebuttal by the applicant, is accepted, no prima facie case is made out worth for taking cognizance much less for framing charge for the aforesaid offences. To bolster his submission, the counsel placed reliance on the judgment passed by Principal Bench of this Court in the case of Sushil Kumar Sharma v. State of M.P. [( 1995) I MPWN 248]. In oppugnation, Mr. Girish Desai, learned Deputy Advocate General appearing for the State, has submitted that at the stage of framing of charge, there is very limited scope to interfere in revision and there is ample material against the applicant for framing the charge, as such no illegality, irregularity or impropriety committed by the trial Court. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after perusing the entire record carefully, this Court is of the opinion that contention of learned counsel for applicant finds strong support on factual and legal position. Every where in the charge-sheet, name of husband of the applicant is mentioned as Vijendra Singh. In the memo of arrest, in the seizure-memo and in the charge-sheet there is nothing revealing the fact that applicant is the wife of Parvinder Singh, as such even if ignoring the certificate filed by the applicant, Annexure ''C" by the prosecution's own showing applicant is the wife of Vijendra Singh. Apart from this controversy of the name of the husband, in pursuance of the statement recorded under section 27 of the Evidence Act, there is no recovery of bank draft. As such this statement is not helpful to the prosecution. It is merely a piece of paper. No relevant facts have been discovered in pursuance thereof. The next evidence is statement of co-accused Parvinder Singh, who has stated that on 9th Aug. 2000, co-accused Yuddhveer Singh has presented one draft in the said State Bank of Indore and obtained Rs. 1,00,000/-. The said sum of the draft was given by him to the present applicant and Parvinder Singh got the draft prepared through the applicant in the name of Dan Singh Rathi. No such document has been recovered from the bank showing the fact that present applicant got the draft prepared. 1,00,000/-. The said sum of the draft was given by him to the present applicant and Parvinder Singh got the draft prepared through the applicant in the name of Dan Singh Rathi. No such document has been recovered from the bank showing the fact that present applicant got the draft prepared. Therefore, merely appearance of the name of the present applicant in the statement of Co-accused Parvinder Singh, is not sufficient to take cognizance and to frame charge for putting the applicant on trial. Against the order of framing of charge, an interference in Revision or under inherent powers, further reference can be made to Supreme Court Judgment in the case of State of Karnataka v. L. Muniswamy ( AIR 1977 SC 1489 ) and in the case of Niranjan Singh Karam Singh v, Jitendra Bhimraj [1991 (1) MPWN 49 = AIR 1990 SC 1962 ]. In the case of State of Karnataka (supra) it has been held that: "A few bits here and a few bits there on which the prosecution proposes to rely are woefully inadequate for connecting the respondents with the crime, howsoever skilfully one may attempt to weave those bits into a presentable whole." In the case of Niranjan Singh (supra) the Apex Court has held as under: "It seems well settled that at the Ss. 227-227 stage i.e. stage of framing of 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." The Apex Court has consistently held that if there is no legal evidence then framing of charge would be groundless, and compelling the accused for facing the trial is nothing but contrary to the procedure prescribed by law which is offending Article 21 of the Constitution of India. For this purpose, the Court has limited powers to look into and sift the evidence upto some extent. (See AIR 1990 SC 1962 ). For this purpose, the Court has limited powers to look into and sift the evidence upto some extent. (See AIR 1990 SC 1962 ). Applying the tests as laid down by the Apex Court, this Court is of the opinion that even if complete prosecution case is accepted, there is absolutely no material to make out primafacie case against the applicant. Therefore, it would be nothing but an abuse of process of Court of law to direct and compel the applicant to face the trial for which there is no certainty how much time the same will take. It is not only harassment or personal loss to the applicant but great loss to public exchequor. Consequently, this revision is allowed. The order of framing of charge passed by the trial Court is hereby set aside.