Prasanna Kumar Jain vs State of M.P.

D.K. Paliwal, J.—With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, matter is heard finally.

This revision petition has been preferred under Sections 397, 401 of Cr.P.C. against the order dated 6.3.13 passed by second ASJ, Dabra, Gwalior, in S.T. No. 138/13, whereby charges under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120B of IPC have been framed against the petitioner.

As per prosecution case, a written complaint was made by complainant Chhotelal alleging that he is the owner of agricultural land situated at village Bhonri, Tahsil Chinore. On 8th July, 2011 Ramvilas Goswami prepared a forged power of attorney in his favour showing to be executed by complainant Chhotelal by producing Vijay Singh son of Devi Singh in place of the complainant. On the basis of this forged power of attorney, on 23.12.11 one sale-deed was executed by Ramvilas Goswami by affixing the photograph of complainant-Chhotelal in favour of Rampuri and Vijay Singh. On the basis of this written complaint, Crime No. 27/12 was registered. After investigation, charge-sheet was submitted against the petitioner alongwith Ramvilas and Hariom Sharma. The investigation was kept open in regard to co-accused Rajendra. After submission of the charge-sheet, the learned trial Court has framed the charges against the petitioner and co-accused. Being aggrieved, the petitioner has preferred this revision petition.

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that prima facie there is no material to frame the charges against the petitioner. The petitioner is a stamp vendor since 2005. He has been authorized by the government. The petitioner has no concern whether the person who has purchased the stamp has used it or abused it. The petitioner has not entered into any conspiracy. Therefore, learned trial Court has committed an illegality in framing the charges against the petitioner. Hence, prayed for quashing of the charges.

Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor for the respondent/State supported the order framing charges against the petitioner submitting that there is prima facie evidence against the petitioner.

Considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties.

As per prosecution case, a forged sale-deed was executed in regard to the agricultural land belonging to the complainant on the basis of a forged power of attorney. In the power of attorney, Hariom Sharma and Rampuri have stood as witnesses and photograph of Vijay Singh has been affixed in place of complainant Chhotelal. The allegation against the petitioner is that he entered into conspiracy with the co-accused in forging the aforesaid document. There is no dispute that neither the petitioner has executed any document, nor he has signed the document as a witness. It is also not disputed that petitioner is a stamp vendor. From the perusal of the copy of the licence, it appears that he has been granted licence to sell stamps under the Indian Stamp Act. The learned counsel for the petitioner has filed photocopy of certified copy of the order passed by Civil Judge, Class 1st, Bhitarwar, in civil suit No. 11-A/12 filed by complainant Chhotelal against Ramvilas, Rampuri and Vijaysingh. The same has been disposed of on the basis of compromise. On perusal of the order passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in M.Cr.C. No. 9004/2012 on 13.11.13, it appears that petition filed by Rajendra Sharma u/s 482 of Cr.P.C. has been allowed and the charges have been quashed holding that in the power of attorney neither the petitioner was a party nor a witness and he has simply signed the sale-deed.

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 considering that petitioner is a stamp vendor and he has sold the stamp and neither he has signed the power of attorney or sale-deed, nor he is a party in the power of attorney or sale-deed, there is no prima facie evidence indicating that petitioner has entered into conspiracy with co-accused Ramvilas, Hariom, Rampuri and Vijay Singh, hence, prima facie there is no material for framing the charges under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120B of IPC against the petitioner. Revision petition deserves to be allowed, hence, it is allowed. The order dated 6.3.2013 passed by 2nd ASJ, Dabra, in S.T. No. 138/13 framing charges against the petitioner is hereby quashed.