Omprakash S/O Parasram Kumrawat And Another vs State Of Madhya Pradesh

The petitioners have filed the present revision under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Cr.P.C., challenging the order dated 2.2.2019 passed by the IIIrd Additional Sessions Judge, Barwani, District-Barwani in S.T.No.07/2019, by which the learned Judge has framed charge against the petitioners for an offence under Sections 120-B, 420/34, 409/34, 467/34, 468/34 and 471/34 of the IPC.

Brief facts of the case are that, on 14.11.2018, the complainant lodged a report to the effect that, co-accused Jitendra s/o Dhuliya Bhaghel has committed offence of fraud and criminal breach of trust for an amount of Rs.9,62,900/-. Thereafter, on the basis of memo under Section 27 of the Evidence Act of co-accused, he revealed the fact that he has given an amount of Rs.2,30,000/- to the petitioner No.1 and an amount of Rs.60,000/- to the petitioner No.2. On the basis of said report, Police Station-Thikri, District-Barwani registered the offence against the petitioners under Sections 409, 420 of the IPC vide Crime No.412/2018, an investigation was carried out and after completing the investigation, charge sheet was filed by the Investigating Agency against the petitioners. Thereafter, the petitioners charged for an offence under Sections 120-B, 420/34, 409/34, 467/34, 468/34 and 471/34 of the IPC. Being aggrieved by the said order, the petitioners have filed the present petition.

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners have been falsely implicated in the matter and there is no iota of material against the petitioners. He submits that, the petitioners have been implicated on the basis of the memo under Section 27 of the Evidence Act of the co-accused. He further submits that, the Investigating Agency has not found or collected any document, which according to them is forged by the petitioners and in absence of the same, prima-facie, no offence under Sections 467 and 468 of the IPC is made out against the petitioners. The ingredients of Sections 420 and 409 of the IPC have also not been attracted to proceed against the petitioners. He further submits that, at the time of framing charges, it is the duty of the Court to apprise the accused as to for what act he will be tried. In the present case, the trial Court framed general and common charges against the petitioners without even seeing whether the petitioners herein can be charged for an offence under Sections 467 and 468 of the IPC. He further relied on the judgment passed by the Apex Court in the case of Dipakbhai Jagdishchandra Patel vs. State of Gujarat and another passed in Criminal Appeal No.5415/2017.

On the other hand, learned Government Advocate submits that, there is an ample evidence against the petitioners on record and therefore, the trial Court has rightly framed the aforesaid charges against the petitioners.

Heard the learned counsel for the parties and also perused the record.

In the present case, the petitioners have charged for committing the above mentioned offence. In the FIR, no allegations have been made against the present petitioners and the petitioners have been implicated on the basis of the memo under Section 27 of the Evidence Act of the co-accused. The Investigating Agency has not collected any documents and therefore, no offence said to have been committed by the petitioners under Sections 467 and 468 of the IPC. The Apex Court in the case of Dipakbhai Jagdishchandra Patel (supra) in para 22 by relying on the judgement passed in the case of Suresh Budharmal Kalani Alias Pappu Kalani (Supra), has taken a view that confession by a co-accused containing incriminating matter against a person would not by itself suffice to frame charge against him.

In the present case, the petitioners have been implicated in the matter on the basis of the statement made by the co-accused person. Thus, considering all the facts and circumstances of the case, the present petition is allowed and the impugned order is hereby set aside. The charges framed against the petitioners are hereby quashed.