Madhya Pradesh High Court

Ashok Sharma vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 6 December, 2021

Author: Gurpal Singh Ahluwalia

                             1
         THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
              Criminal Revision No.3068/2021
              Ashok Sharma Vs. State of M.P.

Gwalior, Dated:06-12-2021

      Shri Virendra Pal Singh, Advocate for applicant.

      Shri A.K. Nirankari, Public Prosecutor for respondent/State.

This Criminal Revision under Sections 397, 401 of Cr.P.C. has

been filed against the order dated 27/8/2021 passed by Additional

Sessions Judge, Gwalior in ST No.272/2021, by which charges under

Sections 420, 467, 468 and 471 of IPC have been framed.

2. The prosecution case in short is that the applicant had preferred

M.Cr.C. No.9340/2015 before this Court alongwith copy of the

agreement to sell. The said application was disposed of by this Court

vide order dated 18/12/2015 with a direction to the applicant to

submit a proper complaint to the Police Station Thatipur, District

Gwalior and in case if such a complaint is submitted, then the SHO

shall take appropriate action in accordance with law, in the light of

the judgment passed by the Supreme Court in the case of Lalita

Kumari Vs. Government of U.P. and others reported in (2014) 2

SCC 1. It is submitted that during the course of enquiry the police

came to a conclusion that the copy of the agreement to sell, filed by

the applicant before this Court in M.Cr.C. No.9340/2015, was a

manipulated document because in the original agreement to sell, the

total consideration amount as well as remaining outstanding amount

THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Criminal Revision No.3068/2021 Ashok Sharma Vs. State of M.P.

were not mentioned, but in the agreement to sell, which was filed

before this Court, amounts were filled by hand. It is submitted by the

counsel for the applicant that the Investigating Officer has not

investigated the matter from the point of view, as to whether the

applicant had filed the manipulated and forged agreement to sell

before this Court or the agreement to sell was manipulated by

somebody else during pendency of M.Cr.C. No.9340/2015. It is

further submitted that the applicant has obtained the report of the

handwriting expert, according to which, it is clear that the

handwritten entries in the document are not in the handwriting of the

applicant and, therefore, it is incorrect to say that the applicant had

filed the manipulated or forged documents before this Court.

3. Considered the submissions made by the counsel for the

applicant.

4. The arguments raised by the applicant are far-feteched. In

M.Cr.C. No.9340/2015 notices were never issued. In the M.Cr.C.

No.9340/2015, which was filed by the applicant, it was alleged that

one Awadh Bihari agreed to sell plots No.150, 151, 152, 153, 154,

155, 156 and 157 situated in New Ashok Colony, Cremation Ground

Road, Morar, District Gwalior, but the said land was not belonging to

Awadh Bihari and when the applicant pointed out as to why he

executed a forged agreement to sell, then he was threatened and on

THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Criminal Revision No.3068/2021 Ashok Sharma Vs. State of M.P.

these allegations, the applicant had prayed that the police should take

action against Awadh Bihari. From the order-sheets of M.Cr.C.

No.9340/2015 which are available on High Court website, it is clear

that on two occasions, i.e. 16/9/2015 and 29/10/2015, the case was

adjourned at the request of counsel for the applicant and it was

finally disposed of on the third date, i.e.18/12/2015. Unless and until

the person against whom complaints were made by the applicant was

aware of filing of application by the applicant under Section 482 of

Cr.P.C., nobody had any interest and occasion to manipulate any

document. Further, Awadh Bihari was not impleaded as respondent in

M.Cr.C. No.9340/2015.

5. So far as the argument of the counsel for the applicant that

there was no necessity for the applicant to enter any amount in the

blank spaces is concerned, the same cannot be accepted. By

interpolating the agreement to sell, the applicant must have tried to

project that Awadh Bihari has executed an agreement to sell in

respect of a land which does not belong to him for a huge

consideration amount. Furthermore, the applicant is a Builder by

profession and, therefore, it cannot be said that the applicant had

entered into an agreement to sell with blank spaces unknowingly.

6. So far as the question regarding the report of the handwriting

expert is concerned, it is not the case of the prosecution that the

THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Criminal Revision No.3068/2021 Ashok Sharma Vs. State of M.P.

applicant himself forged the document and filed the same in the

Court. While filing the document, it is the duty of the litigant to

ensure that the document is not manipulated. If the applicant had got

the entries written in the document by taking services of somebody

else and thereafter had filed the said document with full knowledge

that it is a manipulated and forged document, then it cannot be said

that merely because the handwritten entries are not in the handwriting

of the applicant, therefore, he is an innocent person.

7. So far as the contention that in an application for grant of

anticipatory bail the applicant had filed the correct agreement to sell

without there being any manipulated entries in the document and that

clearly indicates that the applicant was not in possession of the

manipulated document is concerned, it is the case of the prosecution

that the photocopy of the agreement to sell, which was filed by the

applicant before the Court was a manipulated one. A person can

prepare lot of photocopies of a single document, therefore, merely

because the applicant had filed a copy of the correct agreement to sell

alongwith his application for grant of anticipatory bail, it cannot be

said that the applicant by no stretch of imagination can file a forged

document in an application filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.

Furthermore, so far as the documents which have been filed by the

applicant in support of his defence are concerned, the same are matter

THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Criminal Revision No.3068/2021 Ashok Sharma Vs. State of M.P.

of defence and in the light of the judgment passed by the Supreme

Court in the case of State of Orissa v. Debendra Nath Pandhi

reported in (2005) 1 SCC 568, it is well established principle of law

that an accused cannot rely on any document at the stage of framing

of charge and he has to prove his defence by leading evidence at the

appropriate stage.

8. It is further submitted by the counsel for the applicant that

since the prosecution has failed to prove that the document was not

manipulated while it was in custodia legis, therefore, the bar as

contained under Section 195 of Cr.P.C. would be applicable and,

thus, the FIR is not maintainable.

9. Considered the submissions made by the counsel for the

applicant.

10. It is not the case of the prosecution that the applicant had

forged the document while it was in custodia legis. The case of the

prosecution is that the applicant had filed a manipulated and forged

document before this Court. If the document was already forged

before filing in the Court, then it is well established principle of law

that the bar as contained under Section 195 of Cr.P.C. would not be

applicable and the FIR is maintainable. The Supreme Court in the

case of Iqbal Singh Marwah and another Vs. Meenakshi Marwah

THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Criminal Revision No.3068/2021 Ashok Sharma Vs. State of M.P.

and another reported in (2005) 4 SCC 370 has held as under:-

"33. In view of the discussion made above, we are of the opinion that Sachida Nand Singh has been correctly decided and the view taken therein is the correct view. Section 195 (1) (b) (ii) CrPC would be attracted only when the offences enumerated in the said provision have been committed with respect to a document after it has been produced or given in evidence in a proceeding in any court i.e. during the time when the document was in custodia legis."

11. Furthermore, the bail application of the applicant was

dismissed by a detailed order dated 24/3/2021 passed in M.Cr.C.

No.16169/2021 as well as order dated 5/5/2021 passed in M.Cr.C.

No.21913/2021 and the SLP filed by the applicant has also been

dismissed by the Supreme Court by order dated 6/9/2021 passed in

SLP (Cri.) No.4079/2021. It is well established principle of law that

at the stage of framing of charge, a roving enquiry and meticulous

appreciation of evidence is not permissible and even a grave

suspicion that the accused might have committed an offence is

sufficient to frame charges warranting his trial.

12. Accordingly, the revision fails and is hereby dismissed.

However, by way of abundant caution, it is observed that the