Chattisgarh High Court
Kiran Nirala vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 28 July, 2021
1
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
Proceedings through Video Conferencing
CRIMINAL REVISION No. 308/2021
Kiran Nirala wife of Kamal Kumar Nirala, aged about 31 years, R/o.
Barpali, Thana Gidhauri, Distt. Balouda Bazar- Bhatapara (CG)
----Applicant
Versus
State of Chhattisgarh, through Police Station Civil Lines, Raipur,
Distt. Raipur (CG) ----Non-applicant
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For Applicant : Mr. A.K. Yadav, Adv.
For respondent/State : Mr. Dinesh Tiwari, Dy. Govt. Adv.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hon'ble Shri Justice N.K. Chandravanshi
Order on Board
28-7-2021
1. This criminal revision has been preferred by the applicant
being aggrieved by the order dated 4-3-2021 passed by the 12th
Addl. Sessions Judge, Raipur by which charges have been framed
against the applicant under Sections 411 and 413 of the Indian
Penal Code, 1860 (in short 'I.P.C.').
2. Brief facts of the case are that complainant Anshay Sahgal is
doing business of selling of truck tyres. Name of his firm is M/s.
R.N. Sehgal. His office is situated at Katora Talab Chouk, Raipur.
Main accused of this case Kamal Kumar Nirala (Now he has died)
was working as Manager of the complainant. He was husband of
present applicant. 285 nos. of tyres were stolen by Kamal Kumar
Nirala from the office and godown of the complainant. Kamal Kumar
Nirala made three firms, one in his own name, one in the name of
his wife (present applicant) and one in the name of one Durgesh
Tiwari. Names of the firms are Maa Ambe Traders, Maa Laxmi
Traders and Maa Gauri Traders, respectively. Kamal Kumar Nirala
in association with the applicant sold said stolen truck tyres to
different persons by making false bills/vouchers. On the basis of
memorandum, number of tyres have been seized by the police,
145 nos. of tyres have been seized from Bhola Agrawal, certain
receipts have been seized on the basis of memorandum statement
of the applicant, which were issued by Maa Laxmi Traders, whose
proprietor is said to be applicant. After investigation, police have
filed charge sheet under Sections 381, 411 and 413 of the I.P.C.
against the applicant and others.
3. It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that the
impugned order has been erroneously passed by the trial Court. He
further submits that in the evidence collected by the police,
essential ingredients of Section 413 of the I.P.C. are absent. The
name of the applicant was initially not mentioned in the FIR, after
one and half month of the incident, she has been implicated in the
offence as co-accused. The offence, if any, committed, it is
committed by her husband who has died due to Covid 19 disease.
Therefore, offence under Section 411 of the I.P.C. is also not made
out against the applicant. Learned trial Court without appreciating
the material facts has framed charges against the applicant which is
erroneous and bad in law, therefore, liable to be set aside.
4. On the other hand, learned State counsel submits that all
ingredients of Section 411 and 413 of the I.P.C. are available to
frame charges against the applicant and learned trial Court has not
committed any error by framing alleged charges against the
applicant. He places reliance on a decision of Hon'ble Supreme
Court in the matter of Tej Bir v. State of Haryana [(2011) 11 SCC
556], in para 8 of which it has been held that :-
"8. It is well settled that at the stage of framing of
charges the High Court should not exercise its power of
revision by way of quashing the charges by confining its
attention only to the recitals in the FIR. An FIR can
never represent the entire evidence of the case. ......."
5. I have heard learned counsel for both the parties and
perused the material available on record.
6. The material available, especially the memorandum
statement of applicant and seizure memo which was prepared on
the basis of her memorandum statement, show that the applicant
was doing business of selling tyres by making firm Maa Laxmi
Traders. The applicant is alleged to be proprietor of above firm and
knowingly she was involved with her husband in selling of stolen
tyres. Seizure memo shows that the seized bills were issued by
Maa Laxmi Traders in the name of different persons. Statements of
Ajay Kumar Mishra, Gulam Mohammad and Durgesh Tiwari
recorded under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C. also support the charges
framed against the applicant. The material available on record,
which has been filed by the applicant with revision petition, prima
facie shows the ingredients of Section 411, 413 of the I.P.C. against
the applicant.
7. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Bhawna Bai -v- Ghanshyam
and others [2020 (2) SCC 217], has held that :-
"13. .... At the time of framing the charges, only prima facie
case is to be seen; whether case is beyond reasonable
doubt, is not to be seen at this stage. At the stage of framing
the charge, the court has to see if there is sufficient ground
for proceeding against the accused. While evaluating the
materials, strict standard of proof is not required; only prima
facie case against the accused is to be seen."
8. It is well settled proposition of law that at the stage of framing
of charge, even a very strong suspicion founded upon the material
present in the charge sheet would be sufficient ground for framing
of charge. In this case, the material available fulfilled the essential
ingredients for framing of charges which have been framed against
the applicant. Hence, in view of the material available on record and
in the light of the judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter
of Bhawna Bai (supra) and Tej Bir (supra), this Court is of the view
that learned trial Court has not committed any error in framing
alleged charges against the applicant.
9. Hence, instant revision petition being devoid of merit
deserves to be and is hereby dismissed.
Sd/-
N.K. Chandravanshi
Judge
Pathak/-
