Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 190 (MP)

Hansraj v. State of M. P.

2010-02-16

N.K.MODY

body2010
ORDER 1. This is a petition under section 482 CrPC against the order dated 22.9.09 passed by VII ASJ, (Fast Track), Ujjain in CrR. No. 263/09, whereby the order dated 20.8.09 passed in Criminal Case No. 1266/07 by JMFC, Ujjain whereby charges were framed against the petitioner for an offence alleged to have been committed under sections 420, 467,468 of IPC, were modified and the charge framed under section 420 IPC was quashed, the present petition has been filed. 2. In short, case of prosecution was that the petitioner was working as Draftman with Ujjain Development Authority (in short 'UDA'). It was alleged that between 17.1.07 to 14.5.07 petitioner issued no objection certificates on behalf of UDA by forging the signature of the then Chief Executive Officer. It was also found that the challan form for obtaining no objection certificates were also filled in by the petitioner. After investigation Challan was filed and charges were framed against the petitioner under section 420, 467, 468 of IPC. Against which a revision petition was filed which was allowed in part and charge framed under section 420 IPC was quashed, while the order relating to framing of charges under section 467,468 of IPC was maintained, against which present petition has been filed. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued at length and submits that the order passed by the learned Revisional Court whereby order passed by learned JMFC so far as it relates to framing of charge under section 467, 468 IPC is concerned, is illegal, incorrect and deserves to be set aside. It is submitted that even if entire story of the prosecution is accepted, then too, no case of forgery is made out against the petitioner. It is submitted that the FSL report is silent on the point that petitioner is involved in the alleged offence. It is submitted that departmental enquiry was also conducted, in which the charge of forgery was not found proved against the petitioner. It is submitted that in absence of any mens-rea or charge under section 420 IPC, charge under section 467,468 of IPC cannot be framed. It is submitted that the learned Courts below committed error in not taking into consideration the documents submitted by the petitioner while passing the impugned order. It is submitted that in absence of any mens-rea or charge under section 420 IPC, charge under section 467,468 of IPC cannot be framed. It is submitted that the learned Courts below committed error in not taking into consideration the documents submitted by the petitioner while passing the impugned order. Learned counsel placed reliance on a decision in the matter of Rukmini Narvekar v. Vijay Satardekar, (2009) 1 SCC (Cri) 721 wherein one of the Hon'ble Judge of Hon'ble apex Court has observed that it cannot be said as an absolute proposition that under no circumstances can the Court look into the material produced by the defence at the time of framing of the charges though this should be done in very rare cases i.e. where the defence produces some material which convincingly demonstrates that the whole prosecution case is totally absurd or totally concocted. Other Hon'ble Judge of the Hon 'ble apex Court in the same judgment has observed that in a proceeding taken there from under section 482 CrPC the Court is free to consider material that may be produced on behalf of the accused to arrive at a decision whether the charge as framed could be maintained. It was also observed that this appears to be the intention of the legislature in wording Ss. 227 and 228 the way in which they have been worded and as explained in Debendra Nath Padhi Case (2005) 1 SCC 568 . 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on a decision in the matter of Yogesh @ Sachin Jagdish Joshi v. State of Maharashtra, (2009) 1 SCC (Cri.) 51 wherein Hon'ble apex Court has observed that if two views are equally possible and the Judge is satisfied that evidence produced gives rise to suspicion only, as distinguished from grave suspicion, he would be fully within his right to discharge the accused. It was also observed that at this stage he is not to see whether the trial will end in convection or not. 5. On the strength of aforesaid decisions, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petition filed by the petitioner be allowed and the impugned orders passed by the learned Courts below whereby charges have been framed against the petitioner under section 467, 468 IPC be quashed. 6. 5. On the strength of aforesaid decisions, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petition filed by the petitioner be allowed and the impugned orders passed by the learned Courts below whereby charges have been framed against the petitioner under section 467, 468 IPC be quashed. 6. Learned counsel for respondent submits that after due appreciation of evidence collected by the prosecution during investigation charges have been framed against the petitioner which requires no interference. It is submitted that the petition filed by the petitioner be dismissed. 7. From perusal of the record it is evident that the allegations against the petitioner are grave in nature. Petitioner was Draftman at the relevant time and was working with UDA. Allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner has prepared forged no objection certificate. It is true that at the stage of framing of charges the Court is tree to consider material that may be produced on behalf of accused to arrive at a decision whether charge framed could be maintained, but at the same time it is only the reliable material at the stage of framing of charge can be taken into consideration. The documents which the petitioner has produced are the report of departmental enquiry and FSL report. 8. In the matter of Suresh Alias Pappu Bhudhannal Kalani v. State of Maharashtra, reported in (2001) 3 SCC 703 , wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court has observed as under:- At the stage of framing of the charge the Court has to consider the material with a view to find out if there is ground for presuming that the accused has committed the offence or that there is not sufficient ground for proceeding against him and not for the purpose of arriving at the conclusion that it is not likely to lead to a conviction. The Court has to prima facie consider whether there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. The Court is not required to appreciate evidence to conolude whether the materials produced are sufficient or not for convicting the accused. The Court has to prima facie consider whether there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. The Court is not required to appreciate evidence to conolude whether the materials produced are sufficient or not for convicting the accused. Each case depends upon its particular facts and circumstances and sometimes even a remote link between the activities of an accused and the facts of the case may justify a reasonable inference warranting a judicial finding that there is ground for presuming that an accused has committed the offence or at least to presume that the question of his being directly or indirectly involved in the commission of such offence is not to be ruled out. 9. Keeping in view the aforesaid position of law and also keeping in view the evidence which was collected by the prosecution during investigation, this Court is of the view that sufficient material is on record on the basis of which it can be said that prima facie case is made out against the petitioner. So far as documents submitted by the petitioner is concerned, even if the documents are taken into consideration, that does not convincingly demonstrates that the whole prosecution case is totally absurd or concocted. In view of this, petition filed by force petitioner has no force and is hereby dismissed.