Ramesh Chand Verma vs State of Rajasthan and Another

R.S. Chauhan, J.—The petitioner, Ramesh Chand Verma is aggrieved by the order dated 01.02.2012 passed by the Additional Civil Judge (Sr. Division) & Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate No. 3, Jaipur Metropolitan, whereby the learned Magistrate has framed charges for the offences under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B IPC against the petitioner. The petitioner is also aggrieved by the order dated 05.06.2012 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge No. 6, Jaipur Metropolitan, whereby the learned Judge has dismissed the petitioner''s revision petition, and has upheld the order dated 01.02.2012. Brief facts of the case are that the complainant-respondent No. 2, Deen Dayal Choudhary submitted a written report at Police Station JDA, Jaipur, on the basis of which FIR No. 290/2011 came to be registered against the petitioner for the offences under Sections 419, 420, 465, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B IPC on 09.04.2011. After completion of the investigation, the Police filed a challan for the offences under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B IPC against the petitioner. On the basis of the challan, Criminal Case No. 1150/2011 came to be registered in the Court of Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate No. 3, Jaipur Metropolitan. The trial Court, vide its order dated 01.02.2012, framed charges for the offences under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B IPC against the petitioner. Being dissatisfied with the charge order dated 01.02.2012, the petitioner filed a criminal revision before the Additional Sessions Judge No. 6, Jaipur Metropolitan but the same has also been dismissed by the learned Judge upholding the order of the trial Court dated 01.02.2012. Hence, this misc. petition before this Court.

Ms. Sangeeta Sharma, the learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently contended that the petitioner was neither named in the FIR, nor mentioned in the statement recorded u/s 161 Cr.P.C. by the police. It is only upon the subsequent investigation that the co-accused, namely Sadiq Khan has mentioned about the alleged role played by the petitioner.

Secondly, the petitioner has not signed any of the documents, which are alleged to be forged.

Thirdly, there is no evidence to show the presence of the petitioner at the time when the documents were made. Thus, the petitioner has not committed the offences under Sections 467, 468 and 471 IPC. Moreover, since his involvement is not clear from the evidence gathered by the police, he has not committed the offences u/s 419 and 420 IPC. Hence, the learned Magistrate has illegally charged the petitioner for the above-mentioned offences.

Lastly, the learned Judge has overlooked the illegality committed by the learned Magistrate. Hence, both the impugned orders deserve to be interfered with by this Court.

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, and perused both the impugned orders.

A bare perusal of the order dated 01.02.2012, clearly reveals that prior to framing of the charge against the petitioner, the learned Magistrate had gone through the statements of Deendayal Choudhary, Mahendra Singh, Laxman Choudhary, Mahendra Kumar, Shankar Dayal Gupta, Sunil Kumar, Alam Khan and Shrawan Lal Meena. Moreover, he had considered the statements of Sadiq, who had claimed that the petitioner had taken him and had presented him as Ramswaroop. Moreover, the petitioner had gotten the caste certificate made in favour of Sadiq Khan, while presenting him as Ramswaroop. Thus, obviously the learned Magistrate has framed the charges after going through the statements of number of the witnesses recorded u/s 161 Cr.P.C.. Moreover, the learned Magistrate has framed the charge against the petitioner for the offence u/s 120B IPC.

Once the charge u/s 120B IPC has been framed, obviously the case of the prosecution against the petitioner is that he had hatched a criminal conspiracy for committing offences under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468 and 471 IPC. Thus, even if the petitioner may not have committed the offences under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468 and 471 simplicitor, he has not been charged for having committed those offences per se. Instead, he has been charged for entering into a criminal conspiracy to commit those offences. Hence, the contention of the learned counsel that the petitioner has not signed any of the documents, or that he was not present when the documents were so forged, would not make any difference. For, the allegation of the prosecution is that the petitioner had conspired to commit the aforementioned offences. For conspiring to commit the offence, the presence or active role is not a sine qua non. A person may conspire for commission of an offence without taking an active role in the commission of the offence.

A bare perusal of the order dated 05.06.2012, also clearly reveals that the learned Judge has threadbared dealt with the statements of the witnesses.

In the case of Sajjan Kumar Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation, the Hon''ble Supreme Court has laid down the guidelines for framing of the charge, which are as under:-

On consideration of the authorities about the scope of Sections 227 and 228 of the Code, the following principles emerge:

(i) The Judge while considering the question of ramming the charges u/s 227 CrPC has the undoubted power 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. The test to determine prima facie case would depend upon the facts of each case.

(ii) Where the materials placed before the court disclose grave suspicion against the accused which has not been properly explained, the court will be fully justified in framing a charge and proceeding with the trial.

(iii) The Court cannot act merely as a post office or a mouthpiece of the prosecution but has to consider the broad probabilities of the case, the total effect of the evidence and the documents produced before the Court, any basis infirmities, etc. However, at this stage, there cannot be a roving enquiry into the pros and cons of the matter and weigh the evidence as if he was conducting a trial.

(iv) If on the basis of the material on record, the court could form an opinion that the accused might have committed offence, it can frame the charge, though for conviction the conclusion is required to be proved beyond reasonable doubt that the accused has committed the offence.

(v) At the time of framing of the charges, the probative value of the material on record cannot be gone into but before framing a charge the court must apply its judicial mind on the material placed on record and must be satisfied that the commission of offence by the accused was possible.

(vi) At the stage of Sections 227 and 228, the court is required to evaluate the material and documents on record with a view to find out if the facts emerging therefrom taken at their face value disclose the existence of all the ingredients constituting the alleged offence. For this limited purpose, sift the evidence as it cannot be expected even at that initial stage to accept all that the prosecution states as gospel truth even if it is opposed to common sense or the broad probabilities of the case.

(vii) If two views are possible and one of them gives rise to suspicion only, as distinguished from grave suspicion, the trial Judge will be empowered to discharge the accused and at this stage, he is not to see whether the trial will end in conviction or acquittal.

Obviously, while framing of the charge, the learned Magistrate is concerned with the mere existence of strong prima-facie case pointing to the possibility that the offence may have been committed by the alleged accused person. At the time of framing of the charge, the learned trial Court is not concerned with the possibility of conviction or not. If a needle of suspicion pointing towards the probability that the offence may have been committed, it is sufficient for the learned trial Court to frame the charge. For the reasons stated above, this Court does not find any merit in this petition, it is hereby dismissed. The stay application also stands dismissed.