Madhya Pradesh High Court
Ajay Pandey vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 10 February, 2020
Author: Rajeev Kumar Dubey
Bench: Rajeev Kumar Dubey
1 CRR.No.1508 of 2013
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
PRINCIPAL SEAT AT JABALPUR
Single Bench : Hon'ble Shri Rajeev Kumar Dubey, J.
Criminal Revision No.1508/2013
Ajay Pandey
vs.
State of Madhya Pradesh & Anr.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shri Sushil Tiwari, counsel for the applicant.
Shri Rajesh Tiwari, Govt. Advocate for the respondent No.1/State.
None for the respondent No.2/ complainant.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ORDER
Reserved on : 06/02/2020 Delivered on : 10/02/2020 This criminal revision has been filed under Section 397/401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the order dated 31.05.2013 passed by learned XIth ASJ, Bhopal in S.T. No. 179/2012 whereby learned ASJ, Bhopal framed charge against the applicant / accused for the offence punishable under Section 467, 468 and 420 of IPC.
2. Brief facts of the case which are relevant for disposal of this criminal revision are that respondent No.2 / complainant Inder Kumar Matani lodged a written complaint before CSP Bhopal averring that a dispute was going on between applicant Ajay and him regarding shop No. 58 located at Teen Shade, South T.T. Nagar, Bhopal and a criminal case was also pending before the court regarding the said dispute. Complainant sold that shop to Vasudev 1 ½ year prior to the filing of the complaint and since then Vasudev was in possession of that 2 CRR.No.1508 of 2013 shop and was running auto parts business in that shop. In the night of 21.01.1999, the applicant/accused tried to take possession of that shop. Regarding that incident, complainant's brother Kishan Chand lodged a report at P.S. T.T. Nagar Bhopal. On that report, police registered crime No. 58/99 for the offence punishable under Section 448 and 511 IPC. It is further averred that applicant Ajay Pandey prepared a fake agreement dated 20.01.1999 in which it is mentioned that the complainant has relinquished all his rights regarding the said shop and handed over the possession of the shop to the applicant. He also made a fake signature of the complainant on that agreement. On that complaint, police registered Crime No. 692/1999 at P.S. T.T. Nagar, Bhopal for the offence punishable under Section 420, 467 and 468 of IPC and investigated the matter. During investigation, the questioned agreement was sent by the police for examination. The State examiner of questioned document Shri K.K. Sahukar examined the questioned agreement and gave the report that the signature on the disputed agreement was of the complainant. On that police filed a closure report in the crime before the CJM Bhopal. Learned CJM vide order dated 16/08/2001, directed to the police to get a second opinion from another handwriting expert regarding the signature of the complainant on the questioned agreement and to further investigate the matter. On that police again sent the questioned agreement for examination. The second time Shri R.C. Sharma, the Additional State Examiner of the questioned document examined the document and gave the same report. The complainant objected to that report and filed a private complaint against the applicant and argued before the court that the specimen signatures sent by the police for comparison were not of the complainant. The police in connivance with the applicant, sent applicant's specimen signature for comparison, so the reports of handwriting experts presented by the police cannot be acted upon and also prayed to the court to send the questioned document for examination to another expert. Learned ACJM Bhopal allowed that application and directed that on payment of the requisite fee by the complainant the questioned agreement will be sent to another handwriting expert for examination. However, the agreement was not sent for further examination, because the complainant did not deposit the requisite fee. Meanwhile, vide order dated 16/04/2009 learned ACJM recorded the statement of complainant under Section 200 of Cr.P.C. and vide order dated 18/05/2009 took cognizance against the applicant for the offences punishable under Section 420, 467 and 468 of IPC and registered the complaint as criminal case No.8348/2009 3 CRR.No.1508 of 2013 and committed the case to the court of Sessions vide order dated 10/02/2012. On that S.T. No. 179/2012 was registered.
3. During the trial of the Sessions Case applicant filed an application averring that during investigation police got the questioned agreement examined from the State Examiner handwriting expert Shri K.K. Sahukar and on the basis of the report given by him, and the investigation carried out by the investigation agency, the police did not find any prima facie evidence or material against the applicant / accused, resultantly the police filed the closure report before CJM Bhopal. On that report, MJC No.04/2000 was registered. Learned CJM vide order dated 16/08/2001 directed to the police to get an opinion from another handwriting expert regarding the signature of the complainant on the questioned agreement. On that police again sent that agreement for examination. The second time Shri R.C. Sharma, the Additional State Examiner of the questioned document examined the document and gave the same report. The complainant hiding both the reports presented complaint along with the report of a private handwriting expert. So the case should be remanded back to the concerned court for reconsideration. Learned ASJ rejected that application and held that from the complaint the offences under Section 420,467 and 468 are prima facie made out against the applicant and framed charges against the applicant for those offences. Being aggrieved from that order, the applicant filed the present criminal revision.
4. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that on the basis of the complaint lodged by the respondent No.2 Inder Kumar Matani police registered Crime No. 692/99 for the offence punishable under Section 420, 467 and 468 of IPC and started the investigation. During the investigation, police got the questioned agreement examined from the handwriting expert Shri K.K. Sahukar. He gave the report that the signature mentioned on the disputed agreement is of the complainant. On the basis of the said report as well as the other investigation carried out by the investigation agency the police did not find any prima facie evidence or material against the applicant / accused due to which the police filed the closure report in the crime before CJM Bhopal. Where respondent No.2 / complainant raised the objection on that report and requested to call the report from another handwriting expert. It is further submitted that learned CJM Bhopal ordered to re-examine the questioned agreement from another handwriting expert and in compliance with that direction, police again got the questioned agreement examined from the additional State examiner handwriting expert Shri R.C. 4 CRR.No.1508 of 2013 Sharma. He also gave the same report. Then complainant objected to both the reports and moved an application before the court that the questioned agreement be sent to another expert for examination. Learned ACJM allowed that application but thereafter, without obtaining any report from a third handwriting expert, ACJM proceeded with the complaint and recorded the statement of the complainant under Section 200 of Cr.P.C. Even at the time of taking cognizance, learned ACJM did not consider the reports of Shri K.K. Sahukar and Shri R.C. Sharma and wrongly took cognizance against the applicant for the offences punishable under Section 420, 467 and 468 of the IPC. Learned ASJ also without considering those reports wrongly framed charges against the applicant. Looking to the reports given by Shri K.K. Sahukar and Shri R.C. Sharma handwriting experts, no offence under Section 420, 467 and 468 of the IPC are made out against the applicant from the complaint. So the impugned order be set aside.
5. Learned counsel for the State opposed the prayer and submitted that from the complaint prima facie offences under Sections 420, 467 and 468 of IPC are clearly made out against the applicant, so learned trial court did not commit any mistake in framing charges against the applicant and prayed for rejection of revision.
6. This Court has gone through the record and arguments put forth by learned counsel for the parties. However, from the perusal of the record it appears that earlier during pendency of complaint learned ACJM on the request of complainant himself ordered to call the report from another handwriting expert, thereafter concerned court without obtaining the report from handwriting expert took cognizance against the applicant and committed the case to the court of Session. But against that order, the applicant had filed Criminal revision No.334/2010 before the Sessions Judge Bhopal which was rejected by the learned VIIIth ASJ Bhopal vide order dated 18/05/2009 against which applicant filed M.Cr.C. No. 4960/2012 before this Court which was also rejected by the Coordinate Bench of this court vide order dated 26.02.2013. Thereafter that order becomes final, so the applicant is not entitled to challenge that order again in this revision. In this revision only what needs to be seen is whether from the complaint and the documents presented along with it, offence under Section 420, 467 and 468 of IPC are prima facie made out against the applicant or not.
5 CRR.No.1508 of 2013Hon'ble apex court in its judgment passed in Sajjan Kumar Vs CBI report in (2010) 9 SCC 368 after considering our earlier judgements held as under, "On consideration of the authorities about the scope of Section 227 and 228 of the Code, the following principles emerge:-
(i) The Judge while considering the question of framing the charges under Section 227 of the Cr.P.C. 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 basic 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 Section 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 discloses 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, 6 CRR.No.1508 of 2013 he is not to see whether the trial will end in conviction or acquittal."
Which shows that 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. Even on the basis of grave suspicion against the accused which has not been properly explained, the Court can frame the charge and at the time of framing charges all the evidence available on record will be taken into consideration.
7. On the basis of the above guidelines, if we examine the instant case, in the complaint and the statement of complainant it is clearly mentioned that the signature on the questioned agreement is not of the complainant. The police sent the applicant's specimen signature for comparison with the signature on the disputed agreement. Therefore the said reports cannot be taken into consideration. The veracity of the statement of the complainant cannot be ascertained at this stage by evaluating it on merits. Even the handwriting expert report is only an opinion, it is not a conclusive proof. To what extent those reports will affect the credibility of the complainant's statement, is a matter of evidence. Complainant in his complaint and in the statement clearly stated that the applicant Ajay Pandey prepared a fake agreement dated 20.01.1999 in which it is mentioned that the complainant has relinquished all his rights regarding the shop No. 58 located at Teen Shade, South T.T. Nagar, Bhopal and handed over the possession of the shop to the applicant. He also made a fake signature of the complainant on that agreement and produced it to the police. So prima facie offence under Section 467 of IPC is made out against the applicant. So there is no need to interfere in the order.
Hence, the criminal revision is rejected.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge sarathe Digitally signed by NAVEEN KUMAR SARATHE Date: 2020.02.11 12:21:04 +05'30'