Madhya Pradesh High Court
Ramesh Ojha vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 5 February, 2024
Author: Sunita Yadav
Bench: Sunita Yadav
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE SUNITA YADAV
ON THE 5 th OF FEBRUARY, 2024
CRIMINAL REVISION No. 3563 of 2021
BETWEEN:-
1. RAMESH OJHA S/O RAGHUNATH OJHA, AGED
ABOUT 51 YEARS, OCCUPATION: BUSINESS
BYPASS ROAD GUNA (MADHYA PRADESH)
2. SMT. SUNDAR BAI W/O SHRI RAJENDRA
PARIHAR, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
HOUSE WIFE GURJAR COLONY , BYPASS ROAD,
GUNA DIST. GUNA (MADHYA PRADESH)
3. DEEPAK RATHORE S/O SHRI KALURAM
RATHORE, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
BUSINESS RATHORE MOHALLA, PURANI
CHAWANI, TEHSEEL GUNA (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....PETITIONERS
(MR. RAJNISH SHARMA - ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONERS)
AND
1. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH INCHARGE
POLICE STATION P.S. KOTWALI (MADHYA
PRADESH)
2. KRISHNA KUMAR SHARMA S/O SHRI BHAGWATI
PRASAD SHARMA R/O SONI COLONY GUNA
(MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(MR. ROHIT SHRIVASTAVA - PANEL LAWYER FOR RESPONDENT NO. 1 -
STATE AND MR. NITIN SHARMA - ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO. 2 -
COMPLAINANT)
This revision coming on for admission this day, th e court passed the
following:
ORDER
Present revision is filed under Section 397 of CrPC challenging the order
dated 06.3.2020 passed by First Additional Sessions Judge, Guna (M.P.) in
Sessions Trial No. 174 of 2019, whereby charge under Sections 420, 467, 468,
471, 120-B and 447 r.w. 34 of IPC has been framed against the petitioners -
accused persons.
As per prosecution story, present petitioners sold the plot of respondent
No. 2 - complainant situated at Bajrang Garh Main Road having Plot No. 13
admeasuring area 2170 sq. ft. by preparing forged sale deed. Respondent No. 2
filed a complaint before learned trial Court and learned trial Court directed
respondent No. 1 for registration of FIR. Thereafter, FIR has been registered
against the petitioners bearing Crime No.870 of 2017 for offence under Sections
420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B, 447 and 34 of IPC.
Learned Court below framed charges against the petitioners by impugned
order dated 06.3.2020 rejecting their application filed under Sections 227, 228
of CrPC against which present revision is filed.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the impugned charge
framed by learned Court below is unjust, arbitrary and bad in the eye of law.
Learned Court below has erred in not considering the fact that complainant
suppressed the fact of pendency of civil suit before filing of this complaint. It is
further argued that this is a case of civil nature, however, respondent No. 2 -
complainant is trying to give it a colour of criminal case and this aspect has
been ignored by learned Court below. Further argument is that the civil suit has
already been decided by Civil Court, therefore, the charges framed are liable to
be quashed. Hence, prayed that the impugned order framing charges against the
petitioners for offence under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B and 447 r.w.
34 of IPC in Crime No. 870 of 2017 be set aside. In support of his arguments,
learned counsel for the petitioners relied upon the judgments passed by the
Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Randheer Singh vs. State of Uttar Pradesh
& Ors.; (2021) 14 SCC 626 and in the case of Usha Chakraborty & Anr. vs.
State of West Bengal & Anr. passed in criminal appeal arising out of SLP
(Crl.) 5866 of 2022.
O n the other hand, learned counsel for the State as well as learned
counsel for the complainant vehemently opposed the prayer of the petitioners
and argued that learned Court below has also considered the fact of pendency
of civil suit while passing the impugned order framing charge. It is further
argued by learned counsel for the complainant that against the judgment passed
in civil suit, appeal is pending, therefore, the judgment of civil suit has not
attained finality yet and it has no impact on the criminal proceeding. Therefore,
there is no ground to quash the charges framed against the petitioners.
Heard learned counsel for the rival parties and perused the available
record.
The perusal of record reveals that respondent No. 2 - complainant in the
FIR as well as in the statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. has made
specific allegations in respect to the involvement of the petitioners in the crime.
Learned Court below has on the basis of application filed under Section 156 (3)
Cr.P.C. directed to conduct an inquiry. Thereafter, concerned police station
collected evidence and filed charge-sheet under Sections 420, 468, 471, 120-B,
447 and 34 of IPC.
It is well settled that at the stage of framing of charges, the Court has 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. At the stage of
framing of charges, documents filed by the accused are not to be seen. No right
conferred on the accused to produce documents in his possession to prove his
defence at the stage of framing of charges.
In the case of State of Maharashtra v. Priya Sharan Maharaj; (1997)
4 SCC 393, the Apex Court held that at Section 227 and 228 stage, the Court is
required to evaluate the material and documents on record with a view to finding
out if the facts emerging therefrom taken at their face value disclose the
existence of all the ingredients constituting the alleged offence.
It is also well settled that at the stage of framing of charge, the Court has
to see whether the fact alleged and sought to be proved by the prosecution
prima facie disclose the commission of offence on general consideration of the
material placed before him by the investigating police officer.
In this case, as discussed above, upon the direction of the Court,
investigating agency after collecting evidence indicating prima facie involvement
of the petitioners in the commission of offence, filed the charge-sheet, therefore,
in view of the above settled principles of law, learned Court below has not erred
in framing the charges under the aforesaid sections against the petitioners.
In this case, prima facie material is available against the petitioners for
framing charge, therefore, the case laws cited by learned counsel for the
petitioners are not of any help to him.
During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the complainant has
submitted that present case is at the stage of examination of defence witnesses
after recording of evidence of prosecution witnesses.
In view of the above, petitioners have ample opportunity to prove their
defence taken in this petition at the time of recording of evidence of defence
witnesses.
Consequently, present revision sans merit and is hereby dismissed.
(SUNITA YADAV)
JUDGE
AKS
