Madhya Pradesh High Court
Sunil Yadav vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 1 December, 2023
Author: Roopesh Chandra Varshney
Bench: Roopesh Chandra Varshney
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ROOPESH CHANDRA VARSHNEY
ON THE 1 st OF DECEMBER, 2023
CRIMINAL REVISION No. 199 of 2015
BETWEEN:-
SUNIL YADAV S/O SHRI HIRA PRASAD YADAV, AGED
ABOUT 31 YEARS, 121, N-2E/S, BARKHEDA POLICE
STATION GOVINDPURA, DISTRICT BHOPAL (MADHYA
PRADESH)
.....APPLICANT
(BY SHRI MANISH DATT - SENIOR COUNSEL WITH SHRI SIDDHARTH
BENDEL, ADVOCATE)
AND
1. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH
POLICE STATION HABIBGANJ BHOPAL (MADHYA
PRADESH)
2. M.L. GOND S/O SHRI H.L. GOND, LALA LAJPAT
RAI SOCIETY ARERA COLONY BHOPAL (MADHYA
PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENT
(SHRI DINESH PRASAD PATEL - DY. GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE FOR
RESPONDENT NO.1/STATE)
This revision coming on for admission this day, th e court passed the
following:
ORDER
The applicant has filed this revision under Section 397/401 of Criminal
Procedure Code, 1973 ( in short "Code") against the order dated 14/01/2015
passed by learned V Additional Sessions Judge, Bhopal, District Bhopal in
Criminal Revision No.83/2013, whereby learned ASJ allowed the revision
preferred by respondent No.2 against the order dated 30/10/2012 passed by
learned JMFC, Bhopal by which learned JMFC rejected the application moved
on behalf of prosecution under Section 216 of the Cr.P.C. seeking alteration of
charges against applicant and remanded the matter to the trial Court for fresh
adjudication and to pass appropriate order on the question of framing of
charges against the applicant.
2. In brief, the facts of the case are that respondent No.2 - M.L. Gond
filed a written complaint before Superintendent of Police, Bhopal averring that
he is the Director of Kamdhenu Housing Development Society, office of which
is at E-2/21, Arera Colony, Bhopal engaged in construction of residential
houses and shops. For the office work, one Vishal Purohit was appointed, but
after some time he stopped to come to office. Thereafter, applicant/accused
broke the lock of the said office and forcibly took the possession of said shop
and the documents i.e. receipt book, seal, letter pad, stamps etc. and also
misused them. When company officials came to know about this, they went to
the office, at that time applicant abused them, assaulted them and also
threatened to kill them stating that now he is the owner of the said shops. It is
alleged that he prepared forged documents regarding his ownership over the
said shops. Whereon, Company lodged a complaint with the Police for
recovery of alleged documents as well as for recovery for possession of the
shops in question. After investigation on the complaint Police registered Crime
No.1078/2008 at Police Station Habibganj, Bhopal for the offence punishable
under Section 420, 201 of the IPC and filed charge-sheet before the learned
CJM, Bhopal.
3. Learned trial Court vide order dated 30/11/2010 framed the charges
under Section 420, 201 of the IPC against the applicant. Against the said order,
prosecution filed an application under Section 216 of the Cr.P.C. praying that
charges under Section 467, 468, 471 of the IPC be also framed. Vide order
dated 30/10/2012 said application was dismissed by learned trial Court. Against
the order dated 31/10/2012 respondent No.2 filed Criminal Revision
No.83/2013, which was allowed by learned V Additional Sessions Judge,
Bhopal vide order dated 14/01/2015 with a direction to reconsider the matter on
the above charges. Being aggrieved by the said order, applicant/accused
preferred this revision for discharging him from the aforesaid charges.
4. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the impugned order
allowing the revision and directing for reconsideration of charge against the
applicant is bad, illegal, incorrect and improper, whereas no offence under
Section 467, 468, 471 of the IPC is made out against the applicant. It is
submitted that there is no substantial proof or evidence to make out the offence
so alleged against the applicant. There is no evidence to demonstrate that the
applicant has practiced any forgery or manipulated any revenue documents for
allotment of shops. Learned counsel further submitted that any incriminating
article has not been seized from the possession of the applicant. Hence, it is
prayed that the petition be allowed and the impugned order be quashed.
5. On the other hand learned counsel for the State submitted that on true
interpretation of Section 227 of Code, the only material sent by the
prosecution alongwith record of the case can be considered by the learned trial
Court at the time of framing of charges. He further submitted that at the stage of
framing of charges, appreciation of evidence and defence of accused is
impermissible. Learned counsel further submitted that thee is no illegality in the
impugned order, hence it is prayed that the petition be dismissed.
6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the charge-
sheet.
7. At the stage of framing of charges, the learned Trial Court is required
to consider whether there are sufficient grounds to proceed against the accused.
Section 227 of Code provides for eventuality, when the accused shall be
discharged. If not discharged, the charge against the accused is required to be
framed under Section 228 of Code. These two Sections reads as under :
227. Discharge: If, upon consideration of the record of the
case and the documents submitted therewith, and after hearing the
submissions of the accused and the prosecution in this behalf, the
Judge considers that there is not sufficient ground for proceeding against
the accused, he shall discharge the accused and record his reasons for so
doing.
228. Framing of charge: (1) If, after such consideration and
hearing as aforesaid, the Judge is of opinion that there is ground for
presuming that the accused has committed an offence which -
(a) is not exclusively triable by the Court of Session, he may, frame
a charge against the accused and, by order, transfer the case for trial
to the Chief Judicial Magistrate, and thereupon the Chief Judicial
Magistrate shall try the offence in accordance with the procedure for the
trial of warrant - cases instituted on a police report;
(b) is exclusively triable by the Court, he shall frame in writing a
charge against the accused.
(2) Where the Judge frames any charge under clause (b) of sub-section
(1), the charge shall be read and explained to the accused and the accused
shall be asked whether he pleads guilty of the offence charged or claims to
be tried."
8. In the case of State of Bihar Vs. Ramesh Singh [(1977) 4 SCC 39 :
1977 SCC (Cri) 533] considering the scope of Sections 227 and 228 of the
Code, it was held that at the stage of framing of charge, it is not obligatory for
the judge to consider in any detail and weigh in a sensitive balance whether the
facts, if proved, would be incompatible with the innocence of the accused or
not. At that stage, the Court is not to see whether there is sufficient ground for
conviction of the accused or whether the trial is sure to end in his conviction.
Strong suspicion, at the initial stage of framing of charge, is sufficient to frame
the charge and in that event, it is not open to say that there is no sufficient
ground for proceeding against the accused.
9. In the case of Supdt. and Remembrancer of Legal Affairs, W.B. v.
Anil Kumar Bhunja [(1979) 4 SCC 274 : 1979 SCC (Cri) 1038 :
(1980) 1 SCR 323] a three Judge Bench held that the Magistrate at the
stage of framing charges had to see whether the facts alleged and sought to be
proved by the prosecution prima facie disclose the commission of offence on
general consideration of the materials placed before him by the investigating
police officer.
10. In the case of State of Delhi v. Gyan Devi [(2000) 8 SCC 239
: 2000 SCC (Cri) 1486] this Court reiterated that at the stage of framing of
charge the trial Court is not to examine and assess in detail the materials
placed on record by the prosecution nor is it for the court to consider the
sufficiency of the materials to establish the offence alleged against the accused
persons.
11. In the case of State of M.P. v. S.B. Johari [(2000) 2 SCC 57 :
2000 SCC (Cri) 311] it was held that the charge can be quashed if the
evidence which the prosecutor proposes to adduce to prove the guilt of the
accused, even if fully accepted, cannot show that the accused committed the
particular offence. In that case, there would be no sufficient ground for
proceeding with the trial.
12. In State of Maharashtra v. Priya Sharan Maharaj [(1997) 4
SCC 393 : 1997 SCC (Cri) 584] it was held that at Sections 227 and 228
stage the Court is required to evaluate the material and documents on record
with a view to find out if the facts emerging therefrom taken at their face value
disclose the existence of all the ingredients constituting the alleged offence.
The court may, for this limited purpose, sift the evidence as it cannot be
expected even at that initial stage to accept all that the prosecution states as
gospel truth even if it is opposed to common sense or the broad probabilities of
the case.
13. In the case of Rajiv Dubey v. State of M.P., 2016 SCC Online
MP 5791, Hon'ble Apex Court held that at the stage of framing of charge,
court has to consider prima facie evidence available on record. It cannot
consider the evidence extraneously nor it to be weighted meticulously. Defence
of accused is not be looked into at this stage. Cr.P.C. does not give any right to
accused to produce any document at this stage. Submission of the accused is
to be confined to the material produced by police.
14. Similarly, in the case of Anoop Mishra v. Alka Dubey, 2023 SCC
Online MP 455 Hon'ble Apex Court held that at the time of framing of charge,
the material and quality of evidence cannot be gone into. All that has to be
looked into is that whether there is a prima facie case or not. While exercising
revisional jurisdiction, this Court cannot intervene at any interlocutory stage.
15. All the decisions, hold that there can only be limited evaluation
of materials and documents on record and sifting of evidence to prima facie
find out whether sufficient ground exists or not for the purpose of proceeding
further with the trial, have so held with reference to materials and documents
produced by the prosecution and not the accused. The decisions proceed on
the basis of settled legal position that the material as produced by the
prosecution alone is to be considered.
16. It is undisputed that the contents of FIR and the statements prima
facie contain recital regarding the forgery and eliminating / destroying of the
documents. Not filing of the documents and its effect may be seen at the time
of judgment. The submissions made by learned counsel for the applicant,
cannot be countenanced since this relates to the realm of defence of applicant,
which cannot be seen at this preliminary stage.
17. On the basis of above discussion and the legal position, this Court is
of the opinion that at the time of framing of charges, roving enquiry is not
required. Even if there is reasonable doubt after perusal of police papers, then
also charge should be framed. Thus, learned trial Court did not commit any
mistake in passing the impugned order.
18. Accordingly, I do not find any reason to interfere in the impugned
order framing charge against the applicant. The petition is hereby dismissed.
19. However it is made clear that this Court has not made any observation
on the merits of the case. The observation made herein are solely for the
purpose of disposal of this case.
(ROOPESH CHANDRA VARSHNEY)
JUDGE
as
