Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 903 (MP)

Ramesh v. State of M. P.

2015-08-28

SUSHIL KUMAR GUPTA

body2015
ORDER 1. By this criminal revision under section 397 read with section 401 of CrPC (in short “the Code”) petitioners have challenged the order dated 8.7.2014 passed by the First Additional Sessions Judge, Bhind in S.T.No.72/2014, whereby the charge of offence punishable under sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 34 of Indian Penal Code (in short “the Penal Code”) have been framed against the petitioners. 2. The prosecution case, in short, is that on 24.1.2013 the complainant-Baladeen has filed a complaint alleging therein that he is aged 85 years old and illiterate person and suffering from various ailments and he is unmarried and one ancestral land of his title and possession is situated at Mauja Birgava Rani, Tahsil Ater, District Bhind and on that land his sister, husband of sister and their sons are doing agriculture work. It is submitted that one Ramesh Kumar who is petitioner No.1 is also residing at Village Birgava and Ramesh Kumar along with his sons namely Dilip Kumar and Suryakant on false assertions took the complainant on the Bike that they will conduct the check up of his eyes from the hospital and took him to their house and taken the thumb impression of complainant on some papers. After some time complainant came to know that Ramesh Kumar along with his family members and along with document writer Karan Singh Baghel and one In-charge Sub-Registrar Ater with an intention to grab the land of the complainant has prepared a forged sale deed. On the complaint of the complainant the Superintendent of Police, Bhind has made an enquiry and after enquiry directed the Police Station Dehat Bhind to register the case. The police lodged an FIR against the petitioners and charge-sheet was filed for the offences punishable under sections 420, 467, 468, 471 read with section 34 of the Penal Code and the case was committed. 3. The learned Additional Sessions Judge after considering the evidence collected by the prosecution, framed the charges against the petitioners for the offence punishable under sections 420, 467, 468, 471 read with section 34 of the Penal Code. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that there is no evidence available on record against the petitioners for framing of charge under sections 420, 467, 468, 471 read with section 34 of the Penal Code. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that there is no evidence available on record against the petitioners for framing of charge under sections 420, 467, 468, 471 read with section 34 of the Penal Code. He further submitted that even if all the allegations levelled against the petitioners are taken to be true even then no offence is made out under sections 420 467, 468, 471 read with section 34 of the Penal Code. 5. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor for respondent/State opposes the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioners and further supported the impugned order for framing of charge and prays for dismissal of the revision. 6. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the entire record. 7. Complainant Baladeen specifically stated in his statement, recorded under section 161 of the Code, that Ramesh Kumar along with his sons took him on the bike with this false pretext that they will get his eyes checked up in the hospital and on their false assertion, they took him to their house and taken his thumb impression on some papers. It is also indicates from the statement of complainant Baladeen that he has not sold his land to the petitioners even he has not received any consideration. Prima facie, it is also indicates from the statement of complainant Baladeen that without his knowledge petitioners prepared forged sale deed and got executed in their favour. 8. So far as the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that Jai Prakash and Pavan, who are the witnesses of sale deed, have stated in favour of the petitioners that complainant Baladeen voluntary executed the sale-deed in their favour but they are relatives of the petitioners and at this stage where complainant specifically stated against the petitioners, their statement cannot be taken true at this stage. So far as the statement of the one In-charge Sub-Registrar Ater Korne Lieus Tigga (Record Keeper) as per the complaint of Baladeen, he was also involved in commission of the offence along with petitioners and document writer Karan Singh Baghel therefore, where the specific allegation has also been made against the In-charge Sub-Registrar Korne Lieus Tigga, his statement cannot be taken true at this stage. Statement of complainant also supported by witnesses Gangaram and Santosh Kumar. 9. Statement of complainant also supported by witnesses Gangaram and Santosh Kumar. 9. So far as the submission of learned counsel for the petitioners that this is a case of civil nature has no substance. From the evidence available on record, it is prima-facie appears that petitioners with the intention to grab the land of complainant prepared forged sale deed. 10. It is also appears from the record that the Superintendent of Police, Bhind inquired the matter on the complaint of Baladeen and submits report according to which petitioners have committed the alleged offences. Therefore, at this stage prima facie sufficient evidence and material available on record for framing charges against the petitioner under sections 420, 467, 468 and 471/34 of the Penal Code. Hence, no case is made out to discharge the petitioners. Therefore, this criminal revision sans merit and is hereby dismissed.