Pawan Singhal vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2023 Latest Caselaw 9676 MP

                                                               1
                           IN     THE        HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                                   AT GWALIOR
                                                    BEFORE
                                 HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE DEEPAK KUMAR AGARWAL
                                                  ON THE 27 th OF JUNE, 2023
                                          MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 41555 of 2022

                          BETWEEN:-
                          PAWAN SINGHAL S/O LATE SHRI D S SINGHAL, AGED
                          ABOUT 56 YEARS, OCCUPATION: BHAWAN NIRMAN
                          ADHIKARI NAGAR NIGAM GWALIOR RESIDENT OF 18,
                          NARAYAN COLONY, JIWAJI GANJ, DISTRICT GWALIOR
                          (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                      .....PETITIONER
                          (SHRI VIJAY DUTT SHARMA- LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE
                          PETITIONER)

                          AND
                          THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH
                          PRABHARI VAN CHOWKI BILPUR VAN VIBHAG VAN
                          PARIKSHETRA GWALIOR (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                     .....RESPONDENT
                          (SHRI PRAMOD PACHAURI- LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE
                          RESPONDENT- STATE)

                                This petition coming on for hearing this day, th e court passed the

                          following:
                                                                ORDER

By way of this petition filed u/S 482 of CrPC petitioner seeking quashment of entire proceedings initiated in connection with RCT No. 3242 of 2020 before Court of JMFC, Gwalior as well as quashment of order of framing charges dated 07-12-2021 arising out of POR No. 4952 at RC No.93 of 2019 for offences punishable under Sections 26(1)(a) and 26(1)(g) of Indian Forest Act, 1927 [in short '' the Act of 1927''].

Factual matrix of case in short are that on 09-12-2019, a RCC wall of Signature Not Verified Signed by: MAHENDRA BARIK Signing time: 6/28/2023 5:46:23 PM

length 300 ft and 15 ft height was being constructed in Area No. RF-25 in Van Chowki Bilpura, Bara Dumping Site and on the spot Laxminarayan Prajapati and labourers were found who told that construction work is being done by Municipal Corporation Officer and Building Construction Officer Pawan Singhal (herein present petitioner) and Rajendra Jain, son of Sitaram Jain resident of Sinde Ki Chhawni by whom construction of park is being done. The ongoing work on the spot was stopped. When NOC permission of the Forest Department was demanded in connection with said work, contractor's Munshi Laxminarayan Prajapati told that they have no permission from Forest Department and this work is being done by Municipal Corporation to make a

park. On the basis of aforesaid information, a Panchnama was prepared on spot and POR No.4952 of 2023 was recorded against the petitioner and co- accused Rajendra Jain. During investigation, statement of co-accused Rajendra Jain was recorded who in his statement has specifically deposed that for construction of park the tender was in the name of Madhuvan Enterprises and he was told for construction of park as well as boundary wall. He did not know that this was the forest land and the Municipal Corporation did not have permission to construct a park on the forest land. He got work done according to the direction of Pawan Singhal (present petitioner) and all responsibilities of this was of Pawan Singhl and the Municipal Corporation. After completion of enquiry and other formalities, a complaint- cum- challan was submitted before the concerning Magistrate for offence under Sections 26(1)(a) and 26(1)(g) of Act, 1927 against petitioner and co-accused Rajendra Jain.

It is contended by counsel for the petitioner that petitioner was not in- charge of project, neither he is the tendering authority nor is a contracting

Signature Not Verified Signed by: MAHENDRA BARIK Signing time: 6/28/2023 5:46:23 PM

authority to the alleged site and even assigning authority for issuance of order for construction of work and he was not known about the labour works done at the site concerned and about exact nature of area whether the alleged site was notified forest area or not. There is no iota of evidence against petitioner which could show his involvement or implication in any way regarding construction of park as well as boundary wall at the site. It is further contended that he is serving as Building Construction Officer at Municipal Corporation, Gwalior and is in no way connected with working in the field of Swachh Sarvekshan 2020 Policy. There is no evidence available on record for initiation or continuation of proceedings against petitioner which is a clear of abuse of process of Court and it should result in causing injustice towards the petitioner as it is manifestly attended with mala fide and for securing the ends of justice, such proceedings are liable to be quashed. The learned trial Court without going through the evidence and documents available on record, has wrongly passed the impugned order of framing charges against petitioner. In support of his contentions, he has relied on the judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of RP Kapur vs. State of Punjab [AIR 1960 SC 866], P. Vijayan vs. State of Kerala [(2010) 2 SCC 398], State of Harayana and Ors. Vs. Ch. Bhajan Lal & Others [AIR 1992 SC 604] and on relying on the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the matter of Sanjay Kumar Rai vs. State of UP and Another

decided on 07-05-2021 in Criminal Appeal No. 472 of 2021, it is submitted that seeking discharge of petitioner is a valuable right and learned trial Court without following guidelines enunciated by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sanjay Kumar Rai and P. Vijayan (supra) has passed the impugned order of framing charges against petitioner and same is liable to be set aside and petitioner is liable to the discharged from the charges levelled against him. Signature Not Verified Signed by: MAHENDRA BARIK Signing time: 6/28/2023 5:46:23 PM

Per contra, learned counsel for the State opposed contention of counsel for petitioner and prayed for dismissal of this petition.

Heard the counsel for the parties and perused the documents available on record.

On the basis of material collected by the prosecution as well as statements of witnesses as well as of co-accused Rajendra Jain, the Court below has arrived at a conclusion that the petitioner might have committed an offence. It is well-established principle of law that at the time of framing of charges, there is no scope to appreciate the entire evidence in details. Whether the petitioner committed the alleged offence or not, can only be decided in trial. Since the Court below has examined case and found prima facie case against the petitioner, therefore, it cannot be said that the Court below has committed an illegality in passing impugned order of framing charges against petitioner. This Court does not find any perversity or illegality in impugned passed by Court below warranting any interference by this Court at the stage of framing of charges. Petition being bereft of merits, is hereby dismissed.

(DEEPAK KUMAR AGARWAL) JUDGE MKB

Signature Not Verified Signed by: MAHENDRA BARIK Signing time: 6/28/2023 5:46:23 PM