Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 269 (MP)

Pankaj Dosaj v. State of M. P.

2010-03-09

K.S.CHOUHAN

body2010
ORDER 1. This criminal revision under section 397/401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been preferred being aggrieved by the order of framing of charge dated 4.10.2006 passed by Judicial Magistrate First Class, Chhatarpur in Criminal Case No. 29/2005 whereby the charges under section 420, 467, 468 and 471 of Indian Penal Code have been framed against the applicants. 2. The prosecution case in short is that the applicants are the owners of Care English School, Chhatarpur. The complainant Smt. Indrapal Bhatia was working as a teacher in that school. Her services were terminated. She lodged FIR wherein it was alleged that she has not tendered resignation and false document has been prepared. The offence under sections 420, 467, 468 and 471 of Indian Penal Code was registered against the applicants. The documents were examined by State Examiner of Questioned Documents, Government of M.P., Jahangirabad, Bhopal, Report of Handwriting Expert received. After completing the investigation the charge-sheet was filed against the applicants in the Court of JMFC, Chhatarpur. The Court below after hearing the arguments and on perusal of the documents framed the charge against the applicants as stated hereinabove. Being aggrieved the instant revision has been preferred on the grounds mentioned in the memo of revision. 3. Shri Surnedra Singh, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the applicants submitted that the complainant Smt. Indrapal Bhatia joined in the Care English School on 19.8.1990 and her services were terminated on 26.8.1998. The applicants were empowered to terminate her services. No fault can be found in terminating her services. Learned counsel further submitted that the evidence is that the false document was prepared but by that the offences charged are not made out. For framing the charge under section 420 of Indian Penal Code there must be element of deceiving by fraudulently or dishonestly or inducing the person to deliver the property. No such elements have been shown in this case. Prima facie there is no evidence to frame such charges hence the Court below has committed an illegality in framing charge against them, which deserves to be quashed. 4. On the contrary, Shri B.P. Pandey, learned Dy. No such elements have been shown in this case. Prima facie there is no evidence to frame such charges hence the Court below has committed an illegality in framing charge against them, which deserves to be quashed. 4. On the contrary, Shri B.P. Pandey, learned Dy. G.A. appearing on behalf of respondent No. 1/State and Shri A.K. Chaurasia, learned counsel appearing on behalf of complainant/respondent No.2 Smt. Indrapal Bhatia supported the impugned order of framing charge mainly contending that the applicants have prepared false documents of registration and used it as genuine, therefore, the Court below has rightly framed the charges against the applicants and no interference is called for. 5. The main point for consideration in this revision is that whether the Court below has committed any illegality in framing the charge against the applicants under sections 420, 467, 468 and 471 of Indian Penal Code. 6. The question is not that whether the applicants were empowered to terminate the services of respondent No.2 Smt. Indrapal Bhatia or not. The crux of the matter is that she did not tender the registration but the document relating to her resignation has been prepared forcedly by them and used it as genuine document and her services have been terminated on such forged resignation letter. The inquiry was conducted by the competent authority on the direction of Deputy Director, Education, District Chhatarpur and the findings of that inquiry suggest that respondent No.2 Smt. Indrapal Bhatia did not tender her resignation. The applicants were anyhow bent upon to terminate her service. The inquiry report is in favour of respondent No.2 Smt. Indrapal Bhatia. 7. It is established principle of law that the charge can be framed even When the strong suspicion exists against the accused persons. No meticulous examination of the statement of the witnesses is required to he considered. No documents of defence can he considered at this stage. There is sufficient material to frame the charge. Keeping in view the statement of respondent No.2 Smt. Indrapal Bhatia prima facie case is made out against the applicants. The Court below has not committed any illegality in framing the charges under sections 420,467,468 and 471 of Indian Penal Code hence no interference is called for. The revision is merit less and deserves to he dismissed. 8. Consequently, this revision fails and is dismissed accordingly.