Madhya Pradesh High Court
S.K. Zahoor vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 8 December, 2021
Author: Vivek Agarwal
1
The High Court of Madhya Pradesh
Cr.R No. 515 of 2021
(S.K Zahoor Vs. The State of M.P & other)
Jabalpur, Dated : 08/12/2021
Shri Sandeep Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the applicant.
None for the respondent no.1 and 2.
This criminal revision has been filed by the applicant, who is an
advocate by profession being aggrieved of order of framing of
charges passed by First Additional Session Judge, Damoh in Session
Trial No. 105/2018 under provision of sections 419, 467, 468, 469,
471 and section 205 all read with section 109 of IPC for the act of the
petitioner for prompting and filing forged documents in pending
Criminal Case No.757/2011 along with co-accused Halle @ Chappan
Singh.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant is
innocent and he has been falsely implicated. His act is nothing
beyond what all lawyer is authorized to do in a court of law. Applicant
has identified on affidavit and has not prepared any forged document.
He is a practicing lawyer and at the most alleged offence will fall
within provision of section 120B of IPC. It is mentioned that
respondent no.2 has falsely registered a case against the applicant
and therefore framing of the charges is bad in law.
In support of his contention, learned counsel for the applicant
has placed reliance on the judgment of coordinate Bench passed in
M.Cr.C No. 10478/2013 decided on 16/12/2013 wherein a coordinate
Bench had quashed the registration of Crime No.321/2013 for the
offence punishable under sections 205, 467, 419, and 420 of IPC,
placing reliance on judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of
Hiralal Jain Vs. Delhi Administration (1973) 3 SCC 398.
Similarly reliance is also placed on the judgment of a
coordinate Bench passed in M.Cr.C No.9772/2017 (Narayan Prasad
Gard Vs. The State of M.P) decided on 27/07/2018.
On perusal of the impugned order, it reveals that applicant is
accused of coercing co-accused Halle @ Chappan Singh and Jaipal to
submit jointly signed compromise application in Criminal Case No.
757/2011 (State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Halle Bhai @ Chappan &
other) on 02/04/2012, where Jaipal in collusion with accused/Halle @
Chappan Singh represented himself to be the actual complainant and
with a view to commit fraud with the court represented himself to be
Surender Singh, S/o Arjun Singh, thus committing offence of cheating
by personation.
Another charge on the present applicant is that in collusion
with accused/Halle @ Chappan Singh in place of complainant Jaipal
was presented before the court as a complainant to file application
for compromise and Jaipal had put signatures of the complainant
Surender Singh, thus committing an offence of forgery for purpose of
cheating. Charge is also to the affect that applicant had identified
Jaipal as Surendra Singh while filing application for compromise and
thus committed offence under section 471 IPC. Similarly he has been
charged of committing offence under section 205 IPC by falsely
personating another read with section 109 IPC, which is a charge of
abating the offence. Thus when examined in the light of these
aspects, it is evident that law laid down in the case of Hiralal Jain
(supra) provides that order of commitment is wrong where no prima
facie case is made out against accused. In that case advocate was
engaged by some persons for identifying them as claimants in an
application made on their behalf to claim certain land acquisition
compensation amount and the advocate believing the statements of
the claimant as true filed his vakalatnama agreeing to act on their
behalf. There was no evidence to show that advocate had prior
knowledge that the claimants were not the real persons and entitled
to claim the amount.
However facts of the present case are different. In the present
case admittedly applicant was representing accused/Halle @
Chappan Singh before the Court of JMFC. He was having knowledge
as to true and correct identity of the complainant Surendra Singh, yet
despite having knowledge of the identity of the complainant/Surendra
Singh, he permitted Jaipal a accused to impersonate as Surendra
Singh and file an application for compromise which amounts to
impersonation, forgery and cheating. He abated the parties and facts
of the present case are being different than that of Hiralal Jain
(supra), ratio of law laid down will not be applicable in the facts and
circumstances of the present case, calling for any interference in the
order passed by the trial court, framing charges against the present
applicant, therefore, there being no illegality in the impugned order
calling for any interfere, thus this revision petition fails and is
dismissed.
(Vivek Agarwal)
Judge
Digitally signed
tarun/
by TARUN
KUMAR
SALUNKE
Date: 2021.12.11
11:26:40 +05'30'
