Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 309 (MP)

Mahaveer v. State of M. P.

2016-04-18

D.K.PALIWAL

body2016
ORDER 1. This criminal revision has been filed against the order dated 15.9.2015 passed by 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Indore in Session Trial No.615/2014, whereby the charges under sections 420, 467, 468 and 471 of the IPC and section 82 of the Registration Act has been framed against the applicant. 2. Brief facts giving rise to this petition are that on 13.1.2013 sale deed for a consideration of Rs.10,11,000/- was presented before the Sub-Registrar, Indore for registration. In the sale-deed, the executor was named as Bhaurao s/o Rambhau, r/o – 35, Barabhai, Indore. Sale-deed bears the signature of purchaser and seller along with their photographs. Seller and purchaser also appeared before the Sub-Registrar Office along with the witnesses Milind, r/o – 49, Srinagar Main, Indore and Yogendra Dubey, r/o – 92, Roopram Nagar, Indore. They have identified the seller. As per the sale-deed, the size of plot No.97, admeasuring 50 × 36 Feet. On 22.1.2003, when the inspection of the plot was conducted, it came to the notice that Bhaurao s/o Rambhau has died 8 years ago. On 23.1.2003, seller Bhaurao s/o Rambhau and purchaser Mahaveer came to Sub-Registrar office for taking back the documents and information was sought from them regarding the property which has been sold, but they have not furnished the correct information. It was suspected that some other person in place of seller has sold the plot. He disclosed his name as Sunil, r/o – Rahul Gandhi Nagar, Indore. Thus, the seller, purchaser and the witnesses have committed an offence of cheating and forgery of the document. On the basis of the aforesaid complaint of Sub-Registrar, Indore, Crime No.24/2003 under sections 420, 467, 468 and 471 of the IPC and section 82 of the Registration Act has been registered against the applicant along with Milind, Yogesh and Sunil. After due investigation, charge-sheet has been filed. Learned trial Court has framed the charges as mentioned in para-1. Being aggrieved, this petition has been preferred. 3. It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that impugned order is contrary to law and facts on record. Applicant is a bonafide purchaser. Seller/Rambhau has submitted his identity proof before the Sub-Registrar at the time of execution of sale-deed and witnesses have also identified that person. Applicant has never identified that person before the Registry. 3. It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that impugned order is contrary to law and facts on record. Applicant is a bonafide purchaser. Seller/Rambhau has submitted his identity proof before the Sub-Registrar at the time of execution of sale-deed and witnesses have also identified that person. Applicant has never identified that person before the Registry. Counsel submitted the stamp paper and sale-deed proforma before the Sub-Registrar and the applicant is not responsible for identification of the seller, therefore, no offence is made out against the applicant. Learned trial Court has failed to consider the aforesaid aspect and erred in framing the charges. It is prayed that impugned order be set aside. 4. Learned Government Advocate supported the impugned order and submitted that prima facie there is sufficient evidence to frame the charges against the applicant. Learned trial Court has rightly framed the charges. 5. I have perused the record. S.S. Aparoriya and Prabhu Prakash in their case-diary statements have stated that on 13.1.2003, son of Ramswaroop has submitted a sale-deed for registration. In the sale-deed, the name of Bhaurao, s/o Rambhau was mentioned as seller. Witnesses as well as purchaser and seller appeared before the registrar office. Milind and Yogendra Dubey have identified the seller. During inspection, it was found that Bhaurao have died 8 years ago. On 23.1.2003, seller and purchaser came to collect the document, then he enquired about the property and seller disclosed his name as Sunil, r/o – Rahul Gandhi Nagar, Indore. Sanjeev Lada stated that on 23.1.2003, Mahaveer and Milind came to him. They shown the photostat copy of agreement and sale-deed executed by Bhaurao. Mahaveer has purchased the stamp and he has drafted the sale-deed. When he enquired regarding seller Bhaurao, Mahaveer told him that he is coming, but seller did not come. After completing the documents, Mahaveer and Milind have gone. Later on, he came to know that Sunil has submitted a sale-deed posing him as Rambhau s/o Bhaurao before the Sub Registrar. Digamber Pujari is a notary, who stated that on 22.1.2003, one person came to him and disclosed his name as Rambhau s/o Bhaurao, he shown the affidavit and notarized the same from him. Later on, he came to know that Sunil posing himself as Rambhau s/o Bhaurao and presented the sale-deed in the registrar office for registration. Digamber Pujari is a notary, who stated that on 22.1.2003, one person came to him and disclosed his name as Rambhau s/o Bhaurao, he shown the affidavit and notarized the same from him. Later on, he came to know that Sunil posing himself as Rambhau s/o Bhaurao and presented the sale-deed in the registrar office for registration. Pradeep Kumar and Rajendra Rawat have stated that they are working as a registration Moharrir. Mahaveer has presented the documents for registration before Mr. P. P. Shukla, in which, the seller was Rambhau s/o Bhaurao and purchaser was Mahaveer s/o Ramswaroop. Due to deficiency of stamp, time was granted to submit the same. On 23.1.2003, Mahavir and Rambhau came to take back the document. Prior to it, Shri Shukla has received the information that Bhaurao has already died. Milind and Yoegendra Dubey has wrongly identified Sunil as Bhaurao, therefore, the report was lodged. As per the report of the State Examiner of Questioned Document, Government of M.P., specimen signature of Bhaurao have been signed by different person. 6. At the stage of framing of the charge, the truth, veracity and effect of the evidence, which the prosecutor proposes to adduce are not to be meticulously judged. The standard of test, proof and judgment which is to be applied finally before finding the accused guilty or otherwise, is not exactly to be applied at the stage of sections 227 or 228 of Code of Criminal Procedure. The Court at the stage of framing of charge is required to evaluate the material and documents on record with a view to finding out if the facts emerging therefrom taken at their face value disclose the existence of all the ingredients constituting the alleged offence charge can be framed. 7. In the case of Central Bureau of Investigation, Hyderabad v. K. Narayana Rao [2012 AIR SCW 5139], the apex Court considered the scope of sections 227 and 228 of CrPC and held that for framing of charge, a roving enquiry in pros and cons of matter and weighing of evidence as is done in trial is not permissible at this stage. The charge has to be framed if Court feels that there is strong suspicion that accused has committed offence. The charge has to be framed if Court feels that there is strong suspicion that accused has committed offence. Thus, even if there is a strong suspicion which leads the Court to think that there is ground for presuming that the accused has committed an offence, a charge can be framed. 8. Considering the material collected during the investigation, in the opinion of this Court, there is sufficient evidence for presuming that applicant has committed offence under sections 420, 467, 468, 471 of the IPC and section 82 of the Registration Act. Hence,the learned trial Court has not committed any illegality in framing the charges against the applicant. 9. Thus, revision petition sans merits and is accordingly dismissed.