Madhya Pradesh High Court
Smt Meena Kewat vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 24 August, 2023
Author: Sanjeev S Kalgaonkar
Bench: Sanjeev S Kalgaonkar
1
IN THE HIGHCOURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT G WA L I O R
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SANJEEV S KALGAONKAR
ON THE 24th OF AUGUST, 2023
CRIMINAL REVISION No. 1654 of 2023
CRIMINAL REVISION No. 1654 of 2023
BETWEEN:-
1 SMT MEENA KEWAT W/O LATE SHRI BALENDRA
KEWAT, AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, RESIDENT OF EE
262, DEENDAYAL NAGAR, MAHARAJPURA, GWALIOR
(MADHYA PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI VIJAYDUTT SHARMA - ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER )
AND
1.THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH INCHARGE
POLICE STATION THROUGH POLICE STATION
MAHARAJPURA, GWALIOR (MADHYA PRADESH)
TH
ES
2.DILIP BHATNAGAR S/O LATE SHRI NARENDRA
BHATNAGAR, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
EMPLOYEE AT POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD MP
RESIDENT OF EL 544 DEENDAYAL NAGAR
MAHARAJPURA DISTRICT GWALIOR (MADHYA
PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENT
(BY SHRI PURSHOTTAM TANWAR- LEARNED PANEL LAWYER FOR
THE RESPONDENT NO.1-STATE
SHRI ALOK SHARMA - ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.2.
This revision coming on for hearing this day, the court passed the
following:
ORDER
This criminal revision under Section 397 read with 401 of the Cr.P.C is filed assailing the order dated 01/04/2023 passed in RCT No. 2 4983/2021 by Shri Nitin Kumar Mujalda Judicial Magistrate First Class, District Gwalior whereby charge under Section 420 of the IPC was framed against the revision petitioner/accused.
The exposition of the facts, giving rise to this revision, is as under:-
1. On 18/02/2021, Dilip Bhatnagar submitted a written complaint with Police Station Maharajpura, District Gwalior inter-
alia alleging that petitioner/accused- Meena Kewat had fraudulently induced his wife Dolly Bhatnagar on the pretext of some magic for blessing her with child to deliver cash amounts. Falling pray to such fraudulent inducement, his wife Dolly had given in all Rs. Twenty Lakhs between year 2014 to 2020 to the accused. His wife had given away the funds taken on loan from his brother for purchase of plot. On learning about this act of cheating, he got depressed and went to village. After recovery from depression, he is lodging this complaint.
2. After enquiry into abovementioned allegations, Police Station Maharajpura, District Gwalior registered FIR in Crime No. 88/2021 for the offence punishable under Section 420 of the IPC against the revision petitioner. On completion of the investigation, charge sheet under Section 173 of the Cr.P.C was filed.
3. The revision petitioner/accused Meena Kewat filed an application under Section 227 of the Cr.P.C before Learned JMFC inter-alia stating that she is falsely implicated in the matter. After demise of her husband, complainant Dilip Bhatnagar was harassing her and her family members, therefore, she had lodged the FIR with Police Station Maharajpura, District Gwalior. Crime No. 3 95/2021 for the offence punishable under Sections 354, 294 and 506 of the IPC and Crime No. 206/2021 for offence punishable under Sections 323, 294 and 506 of the IPC were registered against Dilip Bhatangar. Thereafter, Dilip Bhatnagar has submitted false complaint against her, whereupon, instant case was registered against her. She may be discharged of the allegation of offence punishable under Section 420 of the IPC.
4. On consideration of the application and after hearing both the parties, the learned Trial Court rejected the application vide impugned order dated 01/04/2023 and proceeded to frame charge of offence punishable under Section 420 of the IPC against the revision petitioner/accused Meena Kewat.
This revision petition is filed assailing the order dated 01/04/2023 on the ground that learned Trial Court did not consider the defence of the accused, as stated in her application under Section 227 of the Cr.P.C. Learned Trial Court did not consider that on report of revision petitioner/accused, Crime No. 95/2021 and Crime No. 206/2021 were registered at Police Station Maharajpura, District Gwalior (M.P.) against the complainant which clearly shows that the instant FIR based thereupon is counterblast to these FIRs against the complainant. The FIR was delayed, therefore, learned Trial Court committed an error in framing charge against the petitioner. The impugned order dated 01/04/2023 deserves to be set-aside and petitioner may be discharged from the charges so framed. It is further requested that all other proceeding arising therewith may be quashed.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn attention of the Court 4 towards the documents submitted alongwith the revision petition and contends that husband of revision petitioner /accused died in harness on 23/06/2020. Thereafter, complainant Dilip Bhatnagar started harassing her. She had made various complaints and lodged FIRs against complainant. There was no legally admissible evidence available against the petitioner except oral statement and alleged seizure. No test identification of seized articles was conducted. Nothing incriminating was available on the record. These facts were not considered by the learned Trial Court while considering the framing of charge against the revision petitioner/accused.
Per-contra, learned counsel for the State and duly assisted by learned counsel for respondent No.2 opposes the revision petition and submits that the learned Trial Court has committed no error in framing charge relying upon the statement recorded under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C as well as seizure at the instance of accused. The revision petition is merit less.
Heard learned counsel for both the parties and perused the case diary.
It has been held by the Supreme Court in the cases of State of Bihar Vs. Ramesh Singh, AIR 1977 Supreme Court 2018, Superintendent and Remembrancer of Legal Affairs West Bengal Vs. Anil Kumar Bhunja, AIR 1980 SC 52, Sanghi Brothers (Indore) Private Limited Vs. Sanjay Choudhary and Others, 2009 Cr.L.J 338 and Shoraj Singh Ahlawat Vs. State of U.P, AIR 2013 SC 52:
Deepakbhai Jagdishchandra Patel vs State of Gujarat (2019) 6 SCC 547 that at the stage of framing charge, even a strong suspicion founded 5 upon the materials before the Court, which leads to form a presumptive opinion as to the existence of factual ingredients constituting the offence alleged, may justify the framing of charge against the accused in respect of the commission of that offence. The probative value of evidence brought on record cannot be gone into at the stage of framing charges.
The Court is required to evaluate the material and documents on record with a view merely to find out, if the facts emerging therefrom taken at their face value disclose ingredients constituting the alleged offence. The veracity and effect of the evidence are not to be meticulously judged at this stage, nor is any weight to be attached to probable defence of accused at the stage of framing of charges.
The Supreme Court in the case of Amit Kapoor Vs Ramesh Chander and Another (2012)9 SCC 460, laid down principle to be considered for exercise of jurisdiction under Section 397 of the Cr.P.C, particularly in the context of quashing of charges framed under Sections 228 of the Cr.P.C.
"27. Having discussed the scope of jurisdiction under these two pro- visions i.e. Section 397 and Section 482 of the Code and the fine line of jurisdictional distinction, now it will be appropriate for us to enlist the principles with reference to which the courts should exercise such jurisdiction. However, it is not only difficult but is inherently impos- sible to state with precision such principles. At best and upon objec- tive analysis of various judgments of this Court, we are able to cull out some of the principles to be considered for proper exercise of ju- risdiction, particularly, with regard to quashing of charge either in ex- ercise of jurisdiction under Section 397 or Section 482 of the Code or together, as the case may be:
27.1. Though there are no limits of the powers of the Court under Section 482 of the Code but the more the power, the more due care and caution is to be exercised in invoking these powers. The power of quashing criminal proceedings, particularly, the charge framed in 6 terms of Section 228 of the Code should be exercised very sparingly and with circumspection and that too in the rarest of rare cases. 27.2. The Court should apply the test as to whether the uncontrovert-
ed allegations as made from the record of the case and the documents submitted therewith prima facie establish the offence or not. If the al- legations are so patently absurd and inherently improbable that no prudent person can ever reach such a conclusion and where the basic ingredients of a criminal offence are not satisfied then the Court may interfere.
27.3. The High Court should not unduly interfere. No meticulous examination of the evidence is needed for considering whether the case would end in conviction or not at the stage of framing of charge or quashing of charge.
27.9. Another very significant caution that the courts have to ob- serve is that it cannot examine the facts, evidence and materials on record to determine whether there is sufficient material on the basis of which the case would end in a conviction; the court is concerned primarily with the allegations taken as a whole whether they will constitute an offence and, if so, is it an abuse of the process of court leading to injustice.
27.13. Quashing of a charge is an exception to the rule of continu- ous prosecution. Where the offence is even broadly satisfied, the Court should be more inclined to permit continuation of prosecution rather than its quashing at that initial stage. The Court is not expect- ed to marshal the records with a view to decide admissibility and re- liability of the documents or records but is an opinion formed prima facie."
In the backdrop of aforesaid proposition of law, the contentions of both the parties are considered.
It is a trite law that the Judge/Magistrate is not mere post-office to frame the charges at the behest of the prosecution. The application of judicial mind to the fact of the cases is essential but for framing of the charge mere strong suspicion founded upon the materials before the Court would be sufficient.
The FIR and statement of witnesses recorded under Section 161 of 7 the Cr.P.C make out the ingredients of cheating, as defined in Section 415 of the IPC. From the statement of complainant Dilip Bhatnagar, his wife Dolly Bhatnagar, witness Arvind, Pankaj, Neeraj and Sonu Shrivastava recorded under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C grave suspicion is made out that revision petitioner/accused fraudulently induced Dolly to deliver the amount on various occasions and deceived her on the pretext of blessing her with child through magic. Thus, ingredients for offence under Section 420 of the IPC were made out. The probity or effect of these statements cannot be gone into at this stage. The defence of the revision petitioner/ accused with regard to previous dispute and harassment by the complainant is not relevant at the stage of framing of the charge.
Learned counsel for the revision petitioner/accused relying on the judgment in the case of Rukmani Narvekar Vs Vijay Sataredkar and others (2008) 14 SCC 1 (Two Judge Bench) submits that the FIR and complaints lodged against complainant manifest that allegation of cheating is counterblast to these proceedings. The learned counsel was at loss to clarify, whether the documents submitted alongwith revision petition were available on the record of Trial court. Be that as it may, the Supreme Court in the case of Rukmani Narvekar (Supra) held that material produced by the defence at the stage of framing of charge may be looked but this should be done in very rare cases where the defence produces some material which convincingly demonstrates that whole prosecution case is totally absurd or total concocted. Even if the FIRs and complaints lodged by the accused are taken into consideration, they do not convincingly demonstrate that prosecution in instant case is absurd or concocted.
In case of State of Orissa Vs. Devendra Nath (2005) 1 SCC 583 8 (Three Judge Bench) it was held that at the stage of framing of charge, the Trial Court can consider only the material produced by the prosecution. Accused has no right to file any material or document at such stage. Thus, the document relied upon the revision petitioner cannot be considered for the purpose of determining legality, correctness, propriety and regularity of the impugned order. Therefore, no prejudice is caused to the petitioner.
The impugned order does not suffer from any illegality or impropriety. No case for interference in exercise of revisional jurisdiction is made out.
The petition sans merits and is hereby dismissed.
(SANJEEV S KALGAONKAR) JUDGE Prachi PRACHI MISHRA 2023.08.26 11:04:09 +05'30'