Mool Chand Aadivasi vs State of M.P.

D.K. Paliwal, J.

Heard.

This revision petition has been preferred u/s 397 read with Section 401 of Cr. P.C. against the order dated 1.11.2010 passed by the learned Special Sessions Judge, Guna in Special S.T. No. 44/2010, whereby the respondent No. 2 and 3 have been discharged from the offence punishable under sections 420, 467, 468 of IPC and u/s 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.

Brief facts of the case are that the complainant has lodged the report that complainants are the resident of Village Rampur and they wanted to purchase the land. Shivraj Singh and Mahendra came to them and told that they want to sale the land on a throw away price, thereafter they shown the land and brought them to Guna where document was written. They have taken Rs. 3,25,000/- by cheating them because the land which they were claiming to be of their ownership belongs to the Forest Department. It is further alleged that when they demanded back their money Shivraj threatened to kill him and thus committed atrocities on complainant who is member of Scheduled Caste.

After investigation, the charge-sheet has been filed. The respondents No. 2 and 3 have preferred an application u/s 227 of Cr. P.C. praying that they be discharged from the offence as prima facie there is no material to frame the charges against them.

The learned Trial Court after considering the material discharged the respondents No. 2 and 3 from the charges u/s 420, 467, 468/34 of IPC and also u/s 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act holding that the dispute appears to be a civil nature, however, framed the charges u/s 506 Part-II and section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.

Being aggrieved of non-framing the charge under sections 420, 467, 468 of IPC and section 3(1)(x) of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, this petition has been preferred. It is submitted that the impugned order is contrary to the record because the same has been passed without looking to the facts of the case and material placed on record. It is further submitted that the learned Trial Court has passed the order on irrelevant consideration, hence, prayed to set aside the impugned order.

I have perused the record of the Trial Court and the documents filed before it. In the report it is alleged that Shivraj Singh and Mahendra Singh have taken Rs. 3,25,000/- dishonestly on the pretext that they want to sell their land on throw away price, while they were knowing that the land was a forest land. The agreement was executed. It is alleged that when the complainant demanded back the money, the same was not returned. In the case diary statements Kallu, Ratan Singh, Rakesh, Lallu, Shankar, Dilip, Moolchand, and Himmat Singh have stated that Shivraj Singh and his son had agreed to sell land and agreement was written and Rs. 3,25,000/- were paid to them, later-on, it was found that the land belongs to Forest Department then they demanded back the money and the incident took place.

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.

In the instant case as noticed the main dispute appears to be of civil nature. The ingredients of sections 420, 467 and 468 of IPC are totally missing, therefore, learned Trial Court has rightly discharged the respondents No. 2 and 3 from the aforesaid offence. No illegality or irregularity or impropriety has been committed by the learned Trial Court in passing the impugned order dated 1.11.2010. Hence, this petition has no substance and deserves to be dismissed.

Consequently, this petition stands dismissed.

Record of the Trial Court be sent back.