Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 542 (MP)

Govind Das Gupta v. State of M. P.

2015-05-06

SUBHASH KAKADE

body2015
JUDGMENT : Subhash Kakade, J. 1. This revision under Section 397/401 of Cr.P.C. has been filed against the order dated 14.08.2014, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Deosar, District Singrauli, Headquarter Waidhan, in Sessions Trial No. 111/2013, framing the charges against the applicants for the offences punishable under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468 and 471, IPC. 2. Brief facts of the case are that on 08.06.2012 Smt. Jagmatiya Kohar lodged a complaint before the Police Station Sarai, District Singrauli, alleging that on 26.11.2011 the applicants committed fraud with him by preparing a registered sale-deed in respect of agricultural land owned by her with the help of other persons, who are Engineer and Secretary, assures her to pay compensation and fraudulently obtained signature on the sale-deed. After completion of due investigation the applicants were charge-sheeted. 3. After committal proceeding learned trial Court by the impugned order have been framed aforesaid charges against the applicants, which are challenged by this revision. 4. Shri Abdhesh Kumar Gupta, learned counsel appearing for the applicants submits that FIR lodged against the applicants after delay of 8 months, which is fatal. It is pointed out that the statement of Rajendra Sengar, Public Servant before whom document Annexure A-1 was filed for registration does not state any thing against the applicants. It is further submitted that the dispute between the parties are of civil nature and in support of it copy of the plaint also filed which was presented by the complainant Smt. Jagmatiya Kohar herself in the Court of learned II Civil Judge Class-II, Deosar, District Singrauli which was registered as Civil Suit No. 10-A/2013 Jagmatoya Vs. Govind Das and others. On the aforesaid grounds, learned counsel for the applicants prayed that the impugned order be quashed and the applicants be discharged from the charges as mentioned above. 5. Shri Akhilendra Singh, learned Panel Lawyer appearing for the respondent-State vehemently opposed above mentioned submissions and on the strength of the statements of prosecution witnesses complainant Smt. Jagmatiya Kohar, her son Ramvilas and brother Ram Prasad pointed out that the case is not only related with offence punishable under Section 420, 467, 468 and 471, IPC but the case is also related with the offence of impersonation punishable under Section 419, IPC. 6. 6. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and also going through the entire record, this Court is of the view that this revision deserves to be dismissed. 7. In Union of India vs. Pafulla Kumar Samal, (1979) 3 SCC 4 , the scope of section 227 of the Code was considered. After adverting to various decisions, the Apex Court enumerated the following principles: "(1) That the Judge while considering the question of framing the charges under section 227 of the Code has the undoubted power to sift and weigh the evidence for the limited purpose of finding out whether or not a prima facie case against the accused has been made out: (2) Where the materials placed before the Court disclose grave suspicion against the accused which has not been properly explained the Court will be, fully justified in framing a charge and proceeding with the trial. (3) The test to determine a prima facie case would naturally depend upon the facts of each case and it is difficult to lay down a rule of universal application. By and large however if two views are equally possible and the Judge is satisfied that the evidence produced before him while giving rise to some suspicion but not grave suspicion against the accused, he will be fully within his right to discharge the accused. (4) That in exercising his jurisdiction under section 227 of the Code the Judge which under the present Code is a senior and experienced Judge cannot act merely as a Post office or a mouth-piece of the prosecution, but has to consider the broad probabilities of the case, the total effect of the evidence and the documents produced before the Court, any basic infirmities appearing in the case and so on. This however does not mean that the Judge should make a roving enquiry into the pros and cons of the matter and weigh the evidence as if he was conducting a trial." 8. The Supreme Court has observed that this section has made a beneficent provision to save the accused from prolonged harassment which is necessary concomitant of a protracted criminal trial. Kewal Krishan, AIR 1980 SC 1780 : 1980 CrLJ 1271 ; State vs Ramesh, AIR 1977 SC 2018 : 1977 CrLJ 1606 . 9. The Supreme Court has observed that this section has made a beneficent provision to save the accused from prolonged harassment which is necessary concomitant of a protracted criminal trial. Kewal Krishan, AIR 1980 SC 1780 : 1980 CrLJ 1271 ; State vs Ramesh, AIR 1977 SC 2018 : 1977 CrLJ 1606 . 9. While framing the charge, the court, instead of considering the probative value of the materials on record, should take them as they stand. The Supreme Court in the case of State v Sheetla Sahai, (2009) 3 SCC (Cri) 901 held that at this stage even a defence of an accused cannot be considered. But, where the entire materials collected during investigation have been placed before the court as part of the charge-sheet, the court at the time of framing of the charge cannot confine itself to the materials upon which the prosecution intended to rely ignoring the other materials which were in favour of the accused. Whether the materials on record, even when given face value and taken to be correct in their entirety, disclose commission of an offence or not, should be the basis for the court for proceeding further, is a question which must be determined having regard to the entirety of materials brought on record by the prosecution and not on a part of it. 10. It is trite that the words "not sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused" appearing in sec.227 of the Code postulate exercise of judicial mind on the part of the Judge to the facts of the case in order to determine whether a case for trial has been made out by the prosecution. However, in assessing this fact, the Judge has the power to sift and weigh the evidence for the limited purpose of finding out whether or not a prima facie case against the accused has been made out. At this stage, he is not to see as to whether the trial will end in conviction or not. The broad test to be applied is whether the materials on record, if un-rebutted, make a conviction reasonably possible. 11. At this stage of framing of charge it is not required to go into the pros and cons of the prosecution evidence as required discussing at the stage of passing of judgment by the trial Court. The broad test to be applied is whether the materials on record, if un-rebutted, make a conviction reasonably possible. 11. At this stage of framing of charge it is not required to go into the pros and cons of the prosecution evidence as required discussing at the stage of passing of judgment by the trial Court. There is no need to sift and weigh or appreciate the prosecution evidence as well as defence available to the applicants and come to the conclusion that no prima facie case is made out nor could be exercised to stifle a legitimate prosecution. It is a settled legal proposition that in a case where there is sufficient evidence against the accused which may establish the charge against him/her, the proceeding cannot be quashed - S. Khushboo v. Kanniammal, (2010) 5 SCC 600 . 12. After perusing the documents filed with the revision, particularly the charge-sheet in light of above discussed legal matrix prima facie well founded case is made out against the applicants. 13. At this preliminary stage, statements of Sub Registrar, Rajendra Sengar alone cannot be deciding the fate of the case of the prosecution, because charges of impersonation are also framed against the applicants. On a careful perusal of the statements of prosecution witnesses Smt. Jagmatiya Kohar, Ramvilas, and Ram Prasad recorded under Section 161 of the Code prima facie case is made out against the applicants for framing of above mentioned charges against the applicants. 14. Accordingly, I do not find any illegality or perversity in the impugned order dated 14.08.2014 warranting interference by way of this revision petition against framing of charge. The revision is dismissed summarily.