Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 57 (MP)

Deepak Kumar Diwan v. State of M. P.

2018-01-12

S.K.GANGELE

body2018
ORDER 1. Appellant has filed this appeal against the order of framing charges against him. The trial Court framed charges against the appellant for commission of offence punishable under sections 420/34, 467/34, 468/34 and 471/34 of Indian Penal Code and section 3(2)(v) of SC and ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. 2. ORDER 1. Appellant has filed this appeal against the order of framing charges against him. The trial Court framed charges against the appellant for commission of offence punishable under sections 420/34, 467/34, 468/34 and 471/34 of Indian Penal Code and section 3(2)(v) of SC and ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. 2. Following charges have been framed against the appellant by the trial Court: ^^eSa] ihŒdsŒ flUgk] fo'ks"k U;k;k/kh'k ¼,VªksflVht½ ujflagiqj] ftyk ujflagiqj ¼eŒizŒ½ vki & nhid dqekj nhoku vkRet & fparkef.k nhoku ij fuEukuqlkj vkjksi yxkrk gw¡ fd%& ¼1½ fnukad 21-4-2009 dks 11-00 cts ls 5-00 cts ds e/; Hkkjrh; LVsV cSad d`f"k fodkl 'kk[kk ujflagiqj iqfyl Fkkuk dksrokyh ujflagiqj ftyk ujflagiqj ¼eŒizŒ½ esa vkius rFkk lg vkjksih larks"k flag iVsy us ijLij lkekU; vk'k; fufeZr dj mlds vxzlj.k esa Ny }kjk csbZekuhiwoZd Qfj;knh 'kkjnk izlkn esgjk ls izopuk dj mlds fdlku ØsfMV dkMZ [kkrk Øekad 30635807102 ls Lohd`r _.k jkf'k lkB gtkj #i;s NyiwoZd gLrk{kj djkdj Lo;a dks ifjnÙk djus gsrq mRiszfjr fd;k vkSj bl izdkj vkius og vijk/k fd;k] tks fd /kkjk 420 lgifBr /kkjk 34 HkkŒnaŒlaŒ ds varxZr naMuh; gksdj bl U;k;ky; ds laKku esa gS ¼2½ mDr fnukaad] le; ,oa LFkku ij vkius rFkk lg&vkjksih larks"k flag iVsy us ijLij lkekU; vk'k; fufeZr dj mlds vxzlj.k esa Qfj;knh 'kkjnk izlkn esgjk dh laifÙk mlds fdlku ØsfMV dkMZ [kkrk Øekad 30635807102 ls Lohd`r _.k jkf'k lkB gtkj #i;s ds lacaèk esa Ny }kjk csbZekuhiwoZd NyiwoZd izkIr djus gsrq rRlaca/kh nLrkost dh dwVjpuk dh vkSj bl izdkj vkius og vijk/k fd;k] tks fd èkkjk 467 lgifBr /kkjk 34 HkkŒnaŒlaŒ ds varxZr n.Muh; gksdj bl U;k;ky; ds laKku esa gSA ¼3½ mDr fnukaad] le; ,oa LFkku ij vkius rFkk lg&vkjksih larks"k flag iVsy us ijLij lkekU; vk'k; fufeZr dj mlds vxzlj.k esa Qfj;knh 'kkjnk izlkn esgjk dh laifRr mlds fdlku ØsfMV dkMZ [kkrk Øekad 30635807102 ds laca/k esa nLrkost dh bl vk'k; ls dwVjpuk dh xbZ fd mls Ny ds iz;kstu ls mi;ksx esa yk;k tk,xk vkSj bl izdkj vkius og vijk/k fd;k] tks fd /kkjk 468 lgifBr /kkjk 34 HkkŒnaŒlaŒ ds varxZr naMuh; gksdj bl U;k;ky; ds laKku esa gSA ¼4½ mDr fnukaad] le; ,oa LFkku ij vkius rFkk lg&vkjksih larks"k flag iVsy us ijLij lkekU; vk'k; fufeZr dj mlds vxzlj.k esa Qfj;knh 'kkjnk izlkn esgjk dh laifÙk mlds fdlku ØsfMV dkMZ [kkrk Øekad 30635807102 ds laca/k esa dwVjfpr nLrkost dks ;g tkurs gq, fd og dwVjfpr gS] diViwoZd@csbZekuh ls vlyh ds :i esa mi;ksx djrs gq, dwVjpuk fd;kA bl izdkj vkius og vijk/k fd;k] tks fd /kkjk 468 lgifBr /kkjk 34 HkkŒnaŒlaŒ ds varxZr naMuh; gksdj bl U;k;ky; ds laKku esa gSA ¼5½ mDr le;kof/k ,oa LFkku ij vkius Lo;a vuqlwfpr tkfr vFkok vuqlwfpr tutkfr dk lnL; ugha jgrs gq, vuqlwfpr tkfr ^esgjk^ ds Qfj;knh 'kkjnk izlkn dh laifRr mlds fdlku ØsfMV dkMZ [kkrk Øekad 30635807102 dh jkf'k lkB gtkj #i;s ds laca/k esa Ny }kjk csbZekuhiwoZd NyiwoZd izkIr djus gsrq rRlaca/kh nLrkost dh dwVjpuk dj nl o"kZ ;k mlls vf/kd vof/k ds dkjkokl ds naM ls n.Muh; vijk/k dkfjr fd;kA bl izdkj vkius og vijk/k fd;k] tks fd èkkjk 3¼2&5½ vuqlwfpr tkfr vkSj vuqlwfpr tutkfr ¼vR;kpkj fuokj.k vfèkfu;e½] 1989 ds varxZr naMuh; gksdj bl U;k;ky; ds laKku esa gSA vkSj eSa ,rn~ }kjk vknsf'kr djrk gw¡ fd vkidk fopkj.k mDr vkjksiksa esa bl U;k;ky; }kjk fd;k tk,A 3. At the relevant time, the appellant was posted as Field Officer, State Bank of India, Agriculture Development Branch, Narsinghpur. One Sharda Prasad Mehra lodged a complaint with the Superintendent of Police, Narsinghpur during 'Jansunvai' organized by the Collector, Narsinghpur. It is alleged in the complaint that Santosh Singh Patel had withdrawn an amount of Rs.60,000/- from the bank account after forging signature of the complainant on the withdrawal form on 21.4.2009. 4. The bank issued Kisan Credit Card to Sharda Prasad Mehra with a credit limit of Rs. 3 lacs only. It is alleged in the complaint that the complainant did not receive the money. When the complainant went to the bank to obtain his old bahi, he came to know that entire amount has been withdrawn from his account. After investigation, it was found that the present appellant had verified the fact that the person in whose favour the amount was disbursed was the person who had the bank account. The present appellant made his signature on the withdrawal form. The police conducted investigation and filed charge-sheet. 5. The counsel for the appellant has submitted that there is no evidence against the appellant showing his involvement. He is falsely implicated in the case. Investigation was not done by the authority, who is competent to conduct the investigation in accordance with the provisions of SC and ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. 6. I have perused the record. There is evidence that the present appellant had put his signature on the withdrawal form. It is not proper to consider the details of evidence, which is available against the appellant on record because it would affect adversely the trial. However, there is evidence for framing of charge against the appellant. Hence, there is no merit in this appeal. It is hereby dismissed. Arvind Pandey for appellant; S. D. Khan, Government Advocate for respondent No.1/State; D. R. Raghuvanshi for respondent No.2.