Pradeep alias Rinku vs State of Madhya Pradesh

Sujoy Paul Judge

He is heard on admission.

This revision u/s 397/401 Cr.P.C. is directed against the order dated 16.11.2011, whereby the court below has framed charges against the petitioner.

Shri Bansal submits that as per the story of the prosecution, no offence is made out against the petitioner. He submits that as per the statement recorded u/s 161 Cr.P.C., Navin Panicker issued an account-payee cheque in the name of his elder brother Dinesh Panicker to the tune of Rs. 40000/-on 7.7.2011. By way of said cheque, Navin Panicker intended to repay the loan which he took from his elder brother Dinesh Panicker. He gave the said cheque to K.P. Radhakrishnan, his office colleague, to deposit it in the bank. In turn, K.P. Radhakrishnan deposited it in the bank on 7.7.2011 and obtained a receipt from the bank. On the next day on 8.8.2011 he received an information from the bank that somebody is caught by the bank authorities, who is projecting himself as Dinesh Panicker and trying to realise the amount mentioned by the said cheque. On the strength of this statement, Shri Bansal submits that admittedly as per the story of prosecution, the cheque was deposited by Radhakrishnan and receipt was obtained by him and was handed over to Navin Panicker. The question of petitioner''s involvement does not arise. Confining his attack to offence mentioned under sections 467 and 468, Shri Bansal relied on Dr. Vimla Vs. Delhi Administration, . By relying on para 15 of this judgment, Shri Bansal submits that no offence u/s 467 I.P.C. is made out. Admittedly, even as per the story of prosecution the petitioner had not realised the amount on the basis of aforesaid cheque and, therefore, the said section is incorrectly invoked by the court below. He also relied on 2002 SCC (Cri) 310 Dilawar Balu Kurane vs. State of Maharashtra to submit that the court below has mechanically framed the charges.

On the strength of these legal authorities, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the charge to the extent offence under sections 467 and 468 is made out against the petitioner is liable to be quashed and set aside.

I have heard the learned counsel and perused the record.

This is settled in law that the Judge while considering the question of framing of charge u/s 227 of Cr.P.C. is required to sift and weigh the evidence for the limited purpose of finding out whether or not a prima facie case against the accused has been made out.

Heavy reliance on Dr. Vimla''s case (supra) is of no help to the petitioner at this stage. In Vimla''s case the Apex Court was dealing with a criminal appeal, wherein after recording of evidence the trial court found the accused as guilty. Thus, in the said case after the entire evidence, the Apex Court was examining the matter on the basis of evidence on record. The said matter will have no application in the present case where only charges are framed by the court below.

The FIR and statements recorded and filed along with the petition show that the bank employees have stated that the petitioner was caught while making an unsuccessful effort to get the cheque encashed in the name of Dinesh Panicker. He failed in the said attempt and was caught red-handed. On the basis of this prima facie material, the court below has framed the charges. The said witnesses have also stated that there was some rubbing and doctoring on the cheque by the petitioner. On the strength of this, allegations under sections 467 and 468 of I.P.C. were made against the petitioner.

The second judgment in Dilawar Balu Kurane''s case (supra) has no application in the fact situation of the present case. Shri Bansal relied on para 12 of the said judgment wherein it is held that when two views are possible, one view which favors the accused should be adopted by the court below. This is nobody''s case here. Neither the court below nor this Court is of the opinion that two views are possible in this case. By no stretch of imagination it can be said that on the basis of material on record and the complaint no allegation and case is made out under aforesaid sections of Indian Penal Code.

In this view of the matter, I am unable to hold that the court below has committed any error in passing the impugned order or framing the charge against the petitioner. Accordingly, I find no reason to interfere.

Resultantly, petition is dismissed. No costs.