Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 818 (MP)

Jagdish Prasad Shrivastava v. State of M. P.

2015-08-10

M.C.GARG

body2015
ORDER 1. This criminal revision has been filed under section 397/401 of CrPC. For quashing the order dated 30.4.2015 passed by 3rd Additional Session Judge, Shivpuri in Sessions Trial No.88/2013 whereby while rejecting the prayer of discharge made by the petitioner, charge has been framed against the petitioner under sections 465, 468, 471, 167, 120B, 402 of IPC. 2. This prosecution has started on the basis of complaint made by Morarilal alleging that he was the owner of the land of which a forged 'patta' was prepared between Ram Kumar in connivance and with the help of some revenue officer and out of them, the prosecution found the present petitioner to be one of the persons responsible and have filed charge sheet against him. 3. During the course of hearing, at the stage of framing of charge, the petitioner came across an order of the civil Court about a litigation between Morarilal Sharma and Ramkumar wherein, the Civil Court has held that the property belongs to Ramkumar and this was confirmed by the Revenue Court. Petitioner tries to take the trial Court through that order, but the trial Court has not looked into that order at the stage of framing of charge and it is for that reason, the petitioner is before this Court. 4. The petitioner has brought to the notice of this Court, judgment delivered by the apex Court in case of Rukmini Narvekar v. Vijaya Satardekar and others, reported in 2008 Vol 14 SCC 1. Para 23 of the judgment is reproduced hereunder: “We agree with Shri Lalit that in some very rare cases the Court is justified in looking into the material produced by the defence at the time of framing of the charges, if such material convincingly establishes that the whole prosecution version is totally absurd, preposterous or concocted. However, in this case it cannot be said that the evidence in the civil suit which was produced by the defence before the trial Court established convincingly that the prosecution case is totally absured or preposterous. In our opinion, this is a matter which has to be looked into by the trial Court.” 5. However, in this case it cannot be said that the evidence in the civil suit which was produced by the defence before the trial Court established convincingly that the prosecution case is totally absured or preposterous. In our opinion, this is a matter which has to be looked into by the trial Court.” 5. In the present case, the documents which were shown by the petitioner to the trial Court were very much relevant qua the main controversy as to whether complainant had some interest in the property or not and therefore whether he was justified in making complaint or not . But the Court did not looked into the order of the trial Court placed on record by the petitioner at the time of framing of charge. 6. I may also make reference of section 294 of the CrPC which also enables the criminal Court to call upon the respondent State in such like cases to admit and deny the genuineness of documents which have some relevance for the purpose of deciding the lis between the State and the petitioner. section 294 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 is reproduced below: “294.No formal proof of certain documents- (1) Where any document is filed before any Court by the prosecution or the accused, the particulars of very such document shall be included in a list and the prosecution or the accused, as the case may be, or the pleader for the prosecution or the accused, if any, shall be called upon to admit or deny the genuineness of each such document. (2) The list of documents shall be in such form as may be prescribed by the State Government. (3) Where the genuineness of any document is not disputed, such document may be read in evidence in any inquiry, trial or other proceedings under this Code without proof of the signature of the person to whom it purports to be signed; Provided that the Court may, in its discretion, require such signature to be proved.” 7. (3) Where the genuineness of any document is not disputed, such document may be read in evidence in any inquiry, trial or other proceedings under this Code without proof of the signature of the person to whom it purports to be signed; Provided that the Court may, in its discretion, require such signature to be proved.” 7. In view of the aforesaid provision, the order of framing of charge qua the petitioner dated 30.4.2015 is set aside with the direction to the trial Court to pass fresh order after taking into consideration the documents placed on record by the petitioner i.e. the order of the civil Court in deciding the lis between Morarilal Sharma and Ram Kumar where in Ram Kumar has been held to be the owner of the suit land. 8. With the abovesaid observations, the criminal revision stands disposed of.