Madhya Pradesh High Court
Karan Singh Lodhi vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 25 September, 2014
1 Mcrc.5025.2014
Karan Singh Lodhi Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh
25/09/2014
Shri Ajay Bhargava, Advocate, for petitioner- Karan
Singh Lodhi.
Shri Prabal Solanki, P.P., for the respondent/State.
With the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, matter is heard finally at motion stage.
This petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been preferred invoking the inherent jurisdiction of this Court for grant of following relief:
"Order dated 09.05.2014 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Picchore, Shivpuri (M.P.) in Session Trial No.239/13 be set-aside. State be directed to file the report of the handwriting expert and till filing of the said report proceedings be deferred."
In brief, the facts of the case are that Crime No.290/12 has been registered by Police Station Khaniadhana, District Shivpuri (M.P.) for the offence punishable under Sections 341, 420, 467, 468 and 409 of IPC against the petitioner on the basis of FIR lodged by Gendarani, Sarpanch, Village Chamraua. Admittedly, at the relevant point of time, petitioner was the Secretary of the Panchayat. Allegations were made that by playing fraud some vouchers worth Rs.1,96,000/- were prepared. Amount of Rs.3,15,000/- was drawn from the bank and property was misappropriated. Offence was registered. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet has been filed by making endorsement in the last 2 Mcrc.5025.2014 Karan Singh Lodhi Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh line that original charge-sheet will be filed after completion of investigation. Matter was committed to the court of Session. Session Trial No.239/13 was registered. Charges were framed and matter has been fixed for recording of evidence of prosecution.
One application dated 14.03.2013 was preferred by the petitioner before the trial court to the effect that as per the note made by the prosecution in charge-sheet signatures of complainant Gendarani were sent by police for examination in order to ascertain whether signatures in question of Gendarani were prepared by her husband Balchand and adopted son Haribhan. But report from the handwriting expert, Bhopal has not been received by the police and has not been filed alongwith the charge-sheet. Therefore, till receiving the aforesaid handwriting expert's report, evidence should not be recorded otherwise the interest of the petitioner will be adversely affected.
The aforesaid application was dismissed while passing the order impugned dated 09.05.2014 by observing that as and when aforesaid report will be filed by the prosecution and on perusal if no case is made out against the petitioner then the petitioner is free to make a request to the court for passing an appropriate order in favour of the petitioner.
It is submitted by Shri Bhargava, learned counsel, that when the aforesaid handwriting expert's report has been 3 Mcrc.5025.2014 Karan Singh Lodhi Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh called by the prosecution itself, then why the same is not being produced. It is also submitted by the learned counsel that in charge-sheet, it was mentioned that original charge- sheet will be filed after completion of the investigation. Thus, evidence cannot be taken till original charge-sheet is not produced by the prosecution against the petitioner. In such circumstances, proper directions are required to be issued to file the aforesaid handwriting expert's report otherwise the interest of the petitioner will be adversely affected.
On the contrary, it is submitted by Shri Solanki, learned Public Prosecutor that detailed reply has been filed and endorsement in charge-sheet that final charge-sheet will be filed after completion of investigation has wrongly been made because of mistake as no such kind of provision is there in Cr.P.C. Once charge-sheet has been filed means charge has finally been filed. In this case also final charge-sheet was filed against the petitioner. It has been admitted that handwriting expert's report is awaited and has not been filed yet and if required then appropriate supplementary charge-sheet will be filed against the culprits after receiving the handwriting expert's report.
After taking into consideration the entire facts of the case and the material available on record, this Court is of the view that handwriting expert's report should be filed by the prosecution as early as possible before the trial court so that 4 Mcrc.5025.2014 Karan Singh Lodhi Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh petitioner can save his rights and submit his defence properly before the trial court. Also looking to the old pendency of the charge-sheet, it would not be just and proper to postpone the proceedings of the trial court but at the same time rights and defence of the petitioner will have to be protected.
In the aforesaid premises, by allowing the present petition, the prosecution is directed to produce the aforesaid report of the handwriting expert as soon as possible before the trial court. Trial Court is also directed to record the evidence of prosecution and till completion of prosecution evidence if the aforesaid report of hand writing expert is not produced by the prosecution then trial court is free to draw adverse inference against the prosecution. At the same time, liberty is also granted to the petitioner to call the aforesaid report in defence, if not produced during the course of recording the evidence of prosecution witnesses. If such report is filed after recording the evidence of prosecution then the petitioner would be at liberty to recall the concerning witness of prosecution for re-examination in view of the belatedly filed handwriting expert's report.
Accordingly, petition is hereby allowed. Copy of the order be sent to Trial Court to proceed further.
(B.D. Rathi) Judge pd