Dinesh Chandra Mittal vs State of M.P.

D.K. Paliwal, J.—This petition has been preferred u/s 482 of Cr.P.C. for quashment of the charge framed under Sections 420, 467, 468, 120-B(1) and 419 of IPC, against the petitioner vide order dated 10.02.2009, passed in Criminal Revision No. 15/2009. The brief facts of the petition are that in pursuance of the order dated 31.01.2007 passed by Sessions Judge, Gwalior in Case No. 122/2007 Girja Shanker @ Lalan Soni, was granted bail of two sureties of Rs. 25,000/- each. Ramsevak S/o Jagmohan and Sevaram S/o Devlal have filed their surety bail papers. When the Court inquired from the sureties, they told different addresses and also submitted that they do not know the accused and they also informed that the Bhu-Adhikar Pustika on the basis of which they are submitting their bail bonds do not belong to them. One surety has disclosed his real name as Rajendra S/o Kuwarpal and disclosed that Bhu-Adikar Pustika bearing No. 270228 has been given by some Dubey Advocate and he has instructed him that he should tell his name as Ram Sevak. Another surety Sevaram disclosed his real name as Gajendra Singh S/o Babulal. He also disclosed that Dubey Advocate has given him Bhu-Adhikar Pustika and also asked him to give the surety in the name of Sevaram S/o Devlal. Thus, the sureties have admitted that they have submitted forged bail bonds before the Court. The complaint to this effect has been sent to the Police Station, Inderganj for taking action.

During investigation Bhu-Adhikar Pustika was seized and inquiry was conducted and on inquiry it was found that Advocate Dinesh Chand Mittal has identified the sureties'' affidavits.

After competition of the investigation charge sheet for the offence punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468, 120-B(1) of IPC has been filed before the JMFC, Gwalior, upon which charges under Sections 420, 467, 468, 120-B(1) & 419 of IPC have been framed against the petitioner. Being aggrieved of the same, petitioner has preferred the Criminal Revision No. 15/2009 before the First Additional Sessions Judge, Gwalior, which was dismissed vide order dated 10.02.2009 by holding that there is no infirmity, illegality or impropriety in framing of the charge.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in the complaint sent by the learned JMFC, petitioner was not named. Further, there was no allegation against the petitioner in the FIR to the effect that the petitioner has produced the sureties before the Court. There is no evidence against the petitioner that he has forged the Bhu-Adhikar Pustika with an intention of cheating. The only allegation against the petitioner is that he has identified the sureties before the Oath Commissioner. But it did not prove that the intention of the petitioner was to get unlawful gain.

At the stage of framing of the charge, the truth, veracity and effect of the evidence, which the prosecutor proposes to adduce are not to be meticulously judged. The standard of test, proof and judgment which is to be applied finally before finding the accused guilty or otherwise, is not exactly to be applied at the stage of Section 227 or 228 of Code of Criminal Procedure.

The Court at the stage of framing of charge 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 charge can be framed.

In the case of Central Bureau of Investigation, Hyderabad Vs. K. Narayana Rao, the Apex Court considered the scope of Sections 227 and 228 of Cr.P.C. and held that for framing of charge, a roving enquiry in pros and cons of matter and weighing of evidence as is done in trial is not permissible at this stage. The charge has to be framed if Court feels that there is strong suspicion that accused has committed offence. Thus, even if there is a strong suspicion which leads the Court to think that there is ground for presuming that the accused has committed an offence, a charge can be framed.

Learned counsel for the petitioner relying on the judgment reported in Ram Jas Vs. State of U.P., submits that the wrong identification of sureties on their affidavits does not come within the purview of any offence.

The facts of the case cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner is entirely different from the present case. The allegation against the appellant in the case relied on by the petitioner is that he has induced the Oath Commissioner by wrong identification to attest the affidavits. It was held that the act done by the Oath Commissioner in attesting the affidavit does not cause any damage or any harm to the Oath Commissioner in body, mind, reputation or property. Therefore, the ingredients of Section 415 of IPC are not fulfilled. But in the instant case the allegation against the petitioner is that he has identified the sureties in place of another persons on the basis of affidavit and documents submitted by that person. The Court was induced to accept the bail papers, therefore, the case cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner is of no assistance to the petitioner.

In the instant case, there is sufficient material on record, which prima facie discloses the ingredients of offence punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468, 120-B(1) & 419 of IPC.

In exercise of powers u/s 482 of Cr.P.C., the Court would be justified to quash any proceeding if it finds that initiation/continuance of it amounts to abuse of the process of Court or quashing of these proceedings would otherwise serve the ends of justice.

Considering the material placed before the court prima facie the ingredients of offence punishable u/s. 419, 420, 467, 468 read with Section 120-B of the I.P.C. are present therefore, I do not find any of the three circumstances exist for exercising the inherent jurisdiction of this Court. Petition is devoid of merits and deserves to be dismissed. Consequently, the petition is dismissed.