AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
No AI summary yet
Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.
Judgment
6 paragraphs · 418 wordsAnil Sharma, Judge
Heard. This petition has been filed u/s 482 of Cr.P.C. against order dated 7.4.11 passed by learned Third Additional Sessions Judge, Bhind, in Criminal Revision No. 61/11 confirming the order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bhind, in Criminal Case No. 367/07, whereby charges for the offence punishable under Sections 403/ 34, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120B of IPC have been framed against the petitioner.
It is submitted by Learned Counsel for the petitioner that name of the petitioner has neither been mentioned in the FIR, nor in the statements of the witnesses. Further, the cheque amount, which was withdrawn by the co-accused, has not been cleared by the petitioner. Petitioner has been impleaded as accused only on the statement of Suresh who is peon in the Nagrik Sahkari Bank, Bhind, and has only stated that co-accused Amit Tripathi used to come to petitioner, who was accountant in the bank.
Learned Counsel for the petitioner has cited decision of this Court in the matter of Kaushlya Devi (Smt.) v. State of M.P., 2003(II) MPWN 41, in which it has been held that if there is no relevant material available on record to connect the applicant in the crime, the charge framed against the accused may be quashed by the High Court.
Learned Counsel for the petitioner has also cited order of this Court in the matter of Vinod Kumar Rajput v. State of M.P. & another, 2006(III) MPWN 123 in which it has been held that if the case does not fall u/s 415 of IPC and conspiracy is not proved even by circumstantial evidence, the charges framed for the offence punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468 read with Section 120B and 415 of IPC are liable to be quashed.
In the present case, there is no evidence connecting the petitioner with the crime of withdrawal of amount of fabricated cheque. There is no evidence regarding conspiracy against the petitioner or his involvement with other accused in the encashment of alleged cheque, therefore, charges framed against the petitioner are liable to be quashed. Considering the aforesaid, the petition is allowed. The charges framed against the petitioner for the offence punishable under Sections 403/ 34, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120B of IPC are hereby quashed. The trial Court is directed to proceed with the trial of the case against other accused persons. A copy of this order be sent to the trial Court for information and compliance.