Madhya Pradesh High Court
Gopal Krishna Agrawal vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 26 April, 2022
Author: Deepak Kumar Agarwal
01
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT GWALIOR
CRR-3153-2018
(Gopal Krishna Agrawal Vs. State of M.P. and Others)
Gwalior, Dated: 26.04.2022
Shri Anand V Bharadwaj, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Shri Lokendra Shrivastava, learned counsel for the respondent
No.1/State.
Shri Raj Shrivastava, learned counsel for the respondent No.2.
Petitioner has filed this Criminal Revision under Section
397/401 of CrPC being aggrieved by order dated 27.04.2018 passed
by Special Judge (MPDVPK Act) Shivpuri by which charges have
been framed against the petitioner under Section 394 of IPC and
11/13 of MPDVPK Act.
In brief, facts of the case for the disposal of this petition are
that on 01.12.2017 complainant Gaurav Gupta lodged a F.I.R. against
petitioner Gopal Krishna Agrawal and one Mukesh Soni at Police
Station City Kotwali, Shivpuri that four months before, he borrowed
Rs.1,35,000/- from accused Mukesh Soni and Rs.1,50,000/- from
petitioner Gopal Krishna Agrawal . In lieu whereof Mukesh Soni
started recovering Rs.50,000/- and petitioner started recovering
Rs.60,000/- per month due to which complainant got frustrated and he
did not pay the installment of one month on account of which on
28.11.2017 at 6 P.M. petitioner Gopal Krishna Agrawal along with
Mukesh Soni took him to Madhav Chauwk and locked him in the
office. Thereafter petitioner told him as to why interest of loan
amount has not been paid by him. He had paid Rs.2,00,000/- to
Mukesh and Rs.2,40,000/- to Gopal. Complete loan amount has been
paid. Thereafter, they told him that they levies 40 % interest and he
has to pay 40% interest per month. They extended threatening to life
and took Rs.6000/- from him, locked him in the office. Afterwards,
they assaulted with fist and kick blows and snatched three cheques of
Axis bank from him. One cheque of Rs.1,35,000/- in the name of
Mukesh Soni and another cheque of Rs.2,00,000/- in the name of
petitioner were taken forcefully from him and one blank cheque was
taken by Rahul Bansal. Thereafter, they did marpeet with him.
Having frustrated with this incident, on 29.11.2017, complainant took
30 sleeping pills, due to which he got admitted in hospital. On his
report, offence under Sections 347, 386, 506, 34 of IPC read with
Section 11/13 of MPDVPK Act and Section 3 and 4 of Madhya
Pradesh Protection of Debtors Act, 1937 was registered. Matter was
investigated. Afterwards, charge-sheet for the aforesaid offence was
submitted before the Court. This Court has granted anticipatory bail
in this crime to the petitioner.
In fact, respondent No.2 Gaurav Gupta took a loan of
Rs.2,00,000/- from petitioner and in lieu of loan drawn a cheque
No.088010 dated 01.04.2017 of Axis bank which was dishonoured.
Respondent assured him that he will pay the amount before
05.12.2017 but before this respondent has lodged an F.I.R. On
14.03.2018 respondent No. 2 Gaurav Gupta filed complaint under
Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act before the court of JMFC,
Shivpuri.
Learned counsel for petitioner in support of this criminal
revision has relied upon the decision rendered in Nitin Singhal Vs.
Purshottam Chug and another in M.Cr.C.No.26941/2017 vide order
dated 20.12.2017 wherein the Court has observed as under:-
"It would not be out of place to observe that there is a growing
tendency among the accused persons of the cases under Section
138 of the Act in order to create some sort of defence, they filed
complaints against the complainants of such cases under Section
200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure before the courts for their
prosecution for the offences punishable under the I.P.C. making
false accusations such as the complainants have forcibly
obtained the sign blank cheques giving threats: that the
complaints have stolen signed blank cheques and that the
complainants have obtained signed blank cheques by playing
frauds so on & so forth instead of contesting the cases under
Section 138 of the Act on reasonable and lawful grounds of
defence".
Learned counsel for State vehemently opposed this petition by
placing reliance on "State of Rajasthan vs. Fatehkaran Mehdu"
AIR 2017 Supreme Court 796 wherein the Apex Court has held that
the scope of revisional jurisdiction is limited to correction of patent
defect or an error of jurisdiction or law or perversity that has crept in
proceedings of inferior Court. It has also been held that at the time of
framing of charge, the Court is required only to consider whether
allegations made, raise strong suspension that accused had committed
offence and test of guilt of accused cannot be applied at this stage.
Upon perusal of FIR and the materiel available on record
especially complaint under Section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act
filed by the petitioner against complainant, it is evident that the FIR
has been lodged on 01.12.2017 whereas complaint under Section 138
Negotiable Instruments Act was filed subsequently on 14.03.2018.
Hence the decision relied upon by the petitioner is of no avail.
The Apex Court in "State of Rajasthan vs. Fatehkaran
Mehdu" (supra) has held that guilt of the accused is not to be gone
into at the stage of framing of charge and the revisional Court can
interfere only when there is perversity in the order passed by the trial
Court. The Apex Court has also held that the evidence cannot be
assessed by the revisional Court at the stage of framing of charge.
In light of the above judgment which is still holding the field,
this Court is of the considered view that there was enough material
before the Court below to frame charges against the petitioner. There
is no perversity in the impugned order so as to exercise the revisional
jurisdiction. The revision petition is, accordingly, dismissed.
(Deepak Kumar Agarwal)
Judge
mani
SUBASRI MANI
2022.05.02
11:55:12
-07'00'
