Madhya Pradesh High Court
Sunil Srivastava vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 28 March, 2025
Author: Maninder S. Bhatti
Bench: Maninder S. Bhatti
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:15509
1 CRR-500-2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MANINDER S. BHATTI
ON THE 28th OF MARCH, 2025
CRIMINAL REVISION No. 500 of 2024
SUNIL SRIVASTAVA
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Appearance:
Shri Sushil Kumar Sharma - Advocate for the applicant.
Shri Y.D. Yadav - Government Advocate for the respondent/State.
ORDER
This revision has been filed by the applicant challenging the order
dated 12.12.2023 (Annexure A/2) passed by XII Additional Session Judge,
Bhopal, District Bhopal in Sessions Case No.318 of 2023 [State of M.P. vs.
Jaya Bhatham and others], whereby charges under sections 419, 420, 467,
468, 471 r/w Section 120-B and Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code
have been framed against the applicant.
2. It is contended by the counsel that the First Information Report was
lodged against the present applicant and other co-accused persons alleging
inter alia that the complainant approached Jila Vyapar and Udyog Kendra for
the purposes of extension of loan for starting the business of readymade
garments where the complainant met one Rakesh Batham. Then Rakesh
Batham provided the documents which were in the name of one Ganesh
Manekar and accordingly, the complainant submitted an application in the
name of Ganesh Manekar only for the purposes of making eligibility for the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:15509
2 CRR-500-2024
loan. Interpolations in various credentials were carried out including the
caste certificate, income certificate as well as ration card. The aforesaid
documents were submitted with Jila Vyapar and Udyog Kendra for the
purposes of extension of loan. The said loans were to be released in terms of
Mukhyamantri Pichda Warg Swarojgar Yojna (Chief Minister Backward
Class Self-Employment Scheme) and one of the requirement was that the
person who was intending to avail the loan should have undergone training
which was being conducted by M.P. Con Limited.
3. It is contended by the counsel that the present applicant was
working as Co-ordinator with the M.P. Con Limited and thereafter, as per the
prosecution, the loan was availed of by the person who was not authorized to
receive the same as the loan was sanctioned on the strength of forged
documents. It is further contended by the counsel that on the basis of the said
allegations, charge-sheet was filed against all the accused persons including
present applicant. The present applicant was implicated in the present case
on the allegation that a certificate of training dated 10.07.2010 was issued to
ineligible person and hence, the applicant according to the prosecution, was
also instrumental in commission of aforesaid offence.
4. It is contended by the counsel that in the present case, the entire
record nowhere contains any mens rea on the part of the present applicant.
There are no allegations of involvement of present applicant so far as
commission of offence is concerned. There exists a memorandum of one
Manohar Adwani which nowhere even contains a whisper regarding name of
the present applicant. The loan in the present case was sanctioned on
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:15509
3 CRR-500-2024
23.06.2010 and was disbursed on 28.06.2010 and the certificate was issued
by the M.P. Con Limited on 10.07.2010. Undisputedly the said certificate as
well as the sanction letter are the parts of the charge-sheet. It is contended by
the counsel that as the certificate regarding training was issued subsequent to
sanction of loan, by no stretch of imagination, it could have been said that
the present applicant facilitated an incompetent person to avail the loan who
otherwise was not entitled for the said loan. Thus, it is contended by the
counsel that the impugned order is unsustainable inasmuch as there are no
allegations of any forgery or cheating so far as the present applicant is
concerned. It is also not the case of the prosecution that the present applicant
received any kind of gratification for the issuance of said certificate. Thus,
the petition filed by the applicant deserves to the allowed.
5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent/State opposed the
prayer and submitted that the present applicant is also involved in
commission of offence, thus, the revision deserves to be dismissed.
6. No other point is argued or pressed by both the parties.
7. Heard the rival submissions of both the parties and perused the
record.
8. A perusal of the record reflects that under the scheme
of Mukhyamantri Pichda Warg Swarojgar Yojna (Chief Minister Backward
Class Self-Employment Scheme), the loan application of the complainant
was processed. The documents were submitted in the name of one Ganesh
Manekar at the behest of Rakesh Batham and accordingly, the allegations
are levelled by the prosecution that as one of requirement was to undergo
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:15509
4 CRR-500-2024
training which was being conducted by M.P. Con Limited, a certificate was
issued by the present applicant in the name of Ganesh Manekar. The person
who had participated in the training was not Ganesh Manekar on the contrary
name and documents which were in the name of Ganesh Manekar were used
for the entire process of loan.
9. A perusal of the aforesaid record reflects that the role of the present
applicant being Co-ordinator of M.P. Con Limited was limited and he had no
concern as regards receipt of the loan application or processing thereof. It is
also undisputed that apart from the period of imparting of training, the
present applicant had no role to play after issuance of said certificate to the
concerned person. It is also not in dispute that the claimants of loan were
referred to the M.P. Con Limited for the purposes of training and therefore,
prima facie there are no allegation as regards the fact that the present
applicant was aware about the identity of the person who was referred for the
purposes of training.
10. The said loan was sanctioned prior to the issuance of the certificate
dated 10.07.2010 and was disbursed as well on 28.06.2010, therefore, the
allegations so levelled against the present applicant even if taken into
consideration on their face value do not reflect that any offence was
committed by the present applicant.
11. In view of the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of State of
Haryana and others v. Bhajanlal and others [(1992) Supp 1 SCC 335] when
the allegations on their face value do not reveal commission of cognizable
offence, the interference is warranted.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:15509
5 CRR-500-2024
12. The Apex Court in the case of Bhajanlal (supra) has held as under:
"102. In the backdrop of the interpretation of the various relevant
provisions of the Code under Chapter XIV and of the principles of
law enunciated by this Court in a series of decisions relating to the
exercise of the extraordinary power under Article 226 or the
inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code which we have
extracted and reproduced above, we give the following categories
of cases by way of illustration wherein such power could be
exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of any court or
otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it may not be
possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently
channelised and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to give
an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein such power
should be exercised.
(1) Where the allegations made in the first information report or
the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and
accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence
or make out a case against the accused.
(2) Where the allegations in the first information report and other
materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a
cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers
under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a
Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code.
( 3 ) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or
complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not
disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case
against the accused.
(4) Where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a
cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence,
no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order
of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code.
(5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so
absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no
prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is
sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused."
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:15509
6 CRR-500-2024
13. In view of the aforesaid law laid down by the Apex Court it is
evident that in the present case, there were no incriminating material against
the present applicant and he was assigned limited role for the purpose of
issuance of completion of training certificate. The applicant had no nexus or
even remote connection with the process of the loan application under the
aforesaid scheme floated by the Government.
14. Therefore, in view of the aforesaid as evidently there are no
allegations of passing of any pecuniary benefit to the present applicant
pertaining to the alleged transaction, this Court is of the view that the alleged
charges could not have been framed against the applicant thus, the impugned
order passed by XII Additional Session Judge, Bhopal dated 12.12.2023 in
Sessions Case No.318/2023, is unsustainable.
15. Accordingly, the Revision Petition stands allowed. The impugned
order dated 12.12.2023, so far as it relates to framing of charge against the
present applicant under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 r/w Section 120-B
and Section 120-B of the IPC is concerned, is set aside. The applicant stands
discharged from the aforesaid charges.
16. The applicant's bail bonds and surety bonds, if any, stands also
discharged.
(MANINDER S. BHATTI)
JUDGE
sp
