Gayatri Prasad Prajapati vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 8819 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
 
 

?Court No. - 10                         AFR 
 

 
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 5231 of 2021
 

 
Applicant :- Gayatri Prasad Prajapati
 
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home And Anr.
 
Counsel for Applicant :- R.N. Shukla,Purnendu Chakravarty
 
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
 

 
Hon'ble Dinesh Kumar Singh,J.

1. The present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed against the order dated 5.10.2021 passed by the Special Judge, MP, MLA/Additional Session Judge, Court No.19, Lucknow, whereby the charges against the accused-petitioner have been framed under Sections 420, 465, 468, 471, 203, 211 read with Section 120-B IPC.

2. Sri Purnendu Chakravarty, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that initially charge sheet dated 23.7.2017 was filed against the petitioner for offences under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 203 and 120-B IPC. On the said charge sheet, cognizance was taken on 31.7.2017 for offences under Sections 211 and 120-B IPC by the learned Magistrate. The said order taking cognizance dated 31.7.2017 was challenged by the prosecution in Criminal Revision No.590 of 2017. However, the learned revisional court dismissed the said revision by a detailed judgment and order dated 13.8.2020 and affirmed the order passed by the learned Magistrate taking cognizance for offences only under Sections 211 and 120-B IPC.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that there was no further evidence brought before the Court to support the charges for offences under Sections 420, 465, 468, 471, 203 IPC. However, the learned trial court has framed the charges for the said offences against the petitioner vide impugned order dated 5.10.2021. It has been further submitted that once the learned Magistrate and the revisional Court have considered the evidence, which was brought on record and they did not find that the offences under Sections 420, 465, 468, 471, 203 IPC were prima facie made out, there was no occasion for the learned Magistrate to frame the charges for the said offences on the same material. He has also submitted that the petitioner did not file the discharge application of the offences under Sections 420, 465, 468, 471, 203 IPC as he did not have any opportunity to file the discharge application in respect of the said offences.

4. On the other hand, Sri Anurag Varma, learned AGA has submitted that in the first charge sheet dated 23.7.2017, it was said that the offences under Sections 420, 465, 468, 471, 203 read with Section 120-B IPC were made out against the accused-petitioner. However, it was said in the first charge sheet that regarding other accused, the investigation was on and after taking possession of the alleged forged and fabricated documents, the same would be sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory for their examination, and after receiving the report from the Forensic Science Laboratory, supplementary charge sheet would be filed in respect of the criminal conspiracy by the other accused in forging the documents etc. He, therefore, submits that the first charge sheet dated 23.7.2017 was not a final charge sheet and the investigating officer was investigating the offence further as mentioned in the charge sheet itself.

5. Learned AGA has also submitted that, thereafter, the documents which were allegedly forged, were procured by the Investigating Officer and the same were sent for their forensic examination to the Forensic Science Laboratory. After receiving the report from the Forensic Science Laboratory and also taking the statement of the Deputy Director of the Forensic Science Laboratory, who examined these documents, supplementary charge sheet dated 17.3.2018 was filed against co-accused, Smt. Ashok Pandey for offences under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 203 and 120-B IPC. The investigation did not stop at that stage and it was carried on further. A second supplementary charge sheet came to be filed on 29.5.2018 against co-accused, Smt. Pushpa and Bujbeer for offences under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 203 and 120-B IPC.

6. Learned AGA has further submitted that at the time of taking cognizance on the first charge sheet, the report of the Forensic Science Laboratory as well as the statement of the Deputy Director of the Forensic Science Laboratory, and the statements of other witnesses, who were not cited in the first charge sheet, were not available. However, in the subsequent charge sheets as mentioned above, report of the Forensic Science Laboratory was in possession of the Investigating Officer and the same was made part of the supplementary charge sheet. Statements of the Deputy Director of the Forensic Science Laboratory and other witnesses, who were not cited in the first charge sheet, were part of the subsequent charge sheets. He has further submitted that the trial court is not shackled by the cognizance order, and it is always open to the trial court to frame charges for other offences, for which cognizance was not taken. If it is found on considering the material/evidence on record that prima facie other offences are also committed, the trial court should frame the charges for such offence(s) for which cognizance was not taken. It depends on the material/evidence which is available on record. At the time of framing of charge, the trial court is required to consider the entire material and evidence on record to find out whether it raises strong suspicion against the accused for commission of offence(s) or not. Therefore, even if the cognizance has been taken for offences under Sections 211 and 120-B IPC against the petitioner, but the trial court found at the time of framing of charge that there was enough material/evidence, which would prima facie raise strong suspicion for commission of offences under Sections 420, 465, 468, 471, 203 IPC, the trial court would not be said to have committed any error of law or jurisdiction in doing so.

7. I have considered the submissions advanced on behalf of the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

8. The accused is always granted opportunity at the time of framing of charge to submit that a particular offence is not made out against him. It is for the accused to file an application or not to file an application for discharge, but the opportunity before framing of charge is always afforded to the accused.

9.There are two different stages;

(a) taking cognizance for offence(s) and summoning the accused; and (b) framing of charge.

10. At the time of taking cognizance, the trial court is required to consider the material/evidence on record to form an opinion about prima facie case against the accused for an offence or offences, and the Court is not required to dwell deep into the material and evidence. The accused is not required to be heard at the time of taking cognizance.

11. At the time of framing of charge, the trial court is required to consider the evidence/material on record a little deep to find out that whether it would raise strong suspicion against the accused for commission of offence(s). The prosecution and accused are afforded opportunity at the time of framing of the charge. Therefore, it is always open to the trial court to frame charge for an offence for which cognizance was not taken or may not frame the charge for an offence for which cognizance was taken. It would depend on the material/evidence available on record.

12. In two subsequent supplementary charge sheets, evidence and material including the Forensic Science Laboratory report and the documents allegedly forged by the petitioner and other co-accused have been brought on record. Besides documents, the oral evidence of some more witnesses have also been brought on record. These evidence/material were not on record when first charge sheet was filed and, therefore, the cognizance was taken only for the offence under Section 211 read with Section 120-B IPC. The trial court was not precluded to consider the material/evidence brought on record with two supplementary charge sheets which would raise strong suspicion against the accused-petitioner for commission of offfences under Sections 420, 465, 468, 471, 203, 211 read with Section 120-B IPC.

13. In view of the aforesaid, this Court does not find that the learned trial court has committed any error of law or jurisdiction in framing the charge for offences under Sections 420, 465, 468, 471, 203, 211 read with Section 120-B IPC against the petitioner.

14. Petition being devoid of merit and substance, is hereby dismissed. It is made clear that any observation made in this order is only in respect of disposal of this petition and they are not on the merit of the case.

Order Date :- 2.8.2022

Rao/-