Ram Sanehi Sharma and Others vs State of M.P.

M.K. Mudgal, J.

Heard the arguments of both the parties and perused the record.

The petitioners have filed this criminal revision u/s 397 read with section 401 Cr.P.C. being aggrieved by the order dated 23.7.2012 passed by the Court of I Additional Sessions Judge Jaura district Morena in S.T. No. 61 of 2012 framing the charges u/s 468 or 458/34 and 471 of Indian Penal Code against the petitioners-accused. Initially, a private complaint was preferred by the respondent No. 2 along with an application u/s 156(3) of the Cr.P.C. on 23.3.2010 which was allowed by learned Judicial Magistrate First Class Jaura and directed to investigate the matter. On the direction given by the JMFC, the police registered the FIR Crime No. 351 of 2011 against the petitioners and three other persons namely Gaya Prasad, Ramavtar and Ram Shankar at Police Station Joura for offences punishable u/s 420, 467, 468, 471 read with section 34 of Indian Penal Code.

The facts, in brief are that respondent No. 2 Hari Shankar, Asharam, Harvir, Chandan and Banwari sons of Ram Singh are joint owners of the land bearing Survey No. 550 Rakba 24 X 24 Sq.ft. having 1/4th equal share. Three out of these four persons namely Hari Shankar, Asha Ram and Harvir executed an agreement to sell in favour of one Aagya Ram. On 16.11.2009 when respondent No. 2 executed a sale deed in favour of Aagya Ram, he came to know about the fact that the present petitioners-accused have executed a sale deed dated 16.11.2009 of the same land in favour of Sonu and Monu who are the minor children of Gaya Prasad. At the time of execution of the sale deed, a forged and fabricated certificate dated 16.11.2009 having the signatures of Sarpanch Balkishan Sharma and Secretary Rajendra Sharma was enclosed.

After investigation, charge sheet was filed u/s 420, 467, 468, 471, 120B and 34 of IPC before Chief Judicial Magistrate Joura, who in turn, committed the case to the Court of Session and the case has been pending in the Court of I Additional Sessions Judge, Joura District Morena as Sessions Trial No. 61 of 2012, where, the accused preferred an application u/s 227 of Cr.P.C. for discharging them from the offences mentioned above. Learned Additional Sessions Judge, considering the fact that the accused at the time of execution of sale deed have produced a false certificate before the Sub Registrar, Joura relating to the land of survey No. 555 and other evidence brought on record, partly allowed the application and exonerated three accused but framed the charges against the petitioners only u/s 468/34 and 471 of IPC. Feeling aggrieved against the said order, present revision petition has been submitted.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there was no prima facie evidence on record for framing the charges against the accused despite that the learned trial Court committed an error in framing the charges. The counsel further submits that the sale deed dated 16.11.2009 was executed regarding Survey No. 550 whereas the alleged forged certificate is related to the Survey No. 555, hence, it can not be inferred that the fabrication of document has been committed by the petitioners. To bolster his submission the learned counsel placing reliance on the judgments, cited the following judgments:

(i). Md. Ibrahim and Others Vs. State of Bihar and Another,

(ii). State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Sheetla Sahai and Others,

(iii). P. Vijayan Vs. State of Kerala and Another,

(iv). B.N. Elias and Co., Ltd., Employees'' Union and Others Vs. B.N. Elias and Co., Ltd., and Others,

Per contra, the respondent''s counsel submits that the order of the learned trial Court is well-reasoned. After considering the recorded evidence, the learned trial Court has framed the charges against the petitioners as the certificate dated 16.11.2009 bearing signatures of Sarpanch and Secretary was enclosed by them along with the sale deed which was executed by them. The said certificate was found forged during investigation because both the said witnesses have deposed in their statements that the said certificate does not bear their signatures. When the charges were framed against the petitioners, the learned trial Court cannot overlooked the said evidence. So, there is no sufficient ground to interfere in the impugned order.

The arguments were considered. On perusal of the impugned order, it becomes clear that the learned trial Court has considered the evidence properly. After discussing the provisions of law and the recorded evidence in details the impugned order was passed by the court below. The cited judgment Md. Ibrahim and Others Vs. State of Bihar and Another, has been considered by the learned trial Court in detail. On that basis, the petitioners cannot be discharged in the instant case.

Indisputably, it has come on record that the sale deed dated 16.11.2009 was executed by the petitioners and the certificate for showing their ownership was enclosed by them with it. The said certificate has been found fake and forged document during investigation as the Sarpanch Balkishan Sharma and the Secretary Rajendra Sharma whose signatures were indicated on the enclosing certificate, have denied their signatures on it. Considering the submissions made herein above, it is inferred that the certificate was enclosed by the petitioners with the sale deed showing their ownership, prima facie they would be liable for the said fabrication unless rebutted by them.

So far as, the other cited judgments are concerned, the petitioners do not get any advantage in this case at the stage of charge as in the judgments P. Vijayan Vs. State of Kerala and Another, and State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Sheetla Sahai and Others, only fundamental principal of charge has been discussed. Apart from, the said judgments are based on quite distinct facts of the instant case.

Considering the said facts and circumstances, the revision petition having no substance and devoid of merit is hereby dismissed.

With the aforesaid observation, this petition stands disposed of. A copy of this order be sent to the concerned trial Court.