Chattisgarh High Court
Lakshmi Singh vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 7 October, 2024
2024:CGHC:39725
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
CRMP No. 2724 of 2024
1 - Lakshmi Singh S/o Late Shri Shivbaran Singh Aged About 55 Years Manager,
Gopal Singh Grah, R/o Gopal Cold Storage Compound, Manendragarh, District
Manendragarh-Chirmiri-Bharatpur (M.C.B.) (C.G.)
2 - Muralidhar Khedia S/o Late Shri Radheshyam Khedia Aged About 56 Years R/o
Bijuri, P.S. And Post - Bijuri, Tehsil - Kotma, District Anuppur (M.P.)
3 - Anand Kumar Khedia S/o Late Shri Radheshyam Khedia Aged About 58 Years R/o
Bijuri, P.S. And Post - Bijuri, Tehsil - Kotma, District Anuppur (M.P.) ... Petitioners
versus
1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through District Magistrate, District Manendragarh (C.G.)
2 - Raj Kumar Gupta S/o Shriloknath Gupta Aged About 60 Years R/o Village -
Kelhari, P.S. And Post - Kelhari, District Manendragarh-Chirmiri-Bharatpur (M.C.B.)
(C.G.) ---- Respondents
(Cause title is taken from the CIS)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For Petitioners : Ms Madhunisha Singh, Advocate For State : Shri Kishan Lal Sahu, Dy GA
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hon'ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal Order on Board 07.10.2024
1. Present petition has been filed under 528 of the Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS 2023) against the impugned order dated 29.08.2024 passed by the learned First Additional Sessions Judge, Manendragarh, District-Koriya, in CRR-19 of 2024, whereby the Crmp 2724 of 2024 2 Criminal Revision filed by the petitioners against the order of framing charge is dismissed.
2. Brief facts of the case as emerges from the pleadings and documents annexed with the petition are that respondent No. 2/complainant has filed a complaint case before the learned trial Court with an allegation that present petitioners No. 2 and 3 are the owners of Gopal Cold Storage, Manendragarh, and petitioner No. 1 is its Manager. Respondent No. 2 is the customer of present petitioners, and used to keep his consignment in the Cold Storage of the present petitioners from long back. During his business, respondent No. 2 has deposited Mahua flowers in the Cold Storage of the petitioners in the following manner:
Sl.No Date Slip No Lot No. Quantity
in Tons
01 20.04.2015 302 2/560 25,200
02 20.04.2015 303 3.696 31,340
03 21.04.2015 305 5.556 25,060
04 22.04.2015 308 8.600 27,040
05 24.04.2015 317 17/556 24,950
06 26.04.2015 333 32/600 26,940
3. It is also averred in the complaint that when the
customer/respondent No.2 wants to get his consignment back, he has to surrender the deposit slip to Cold Storage, pay the charges and then take his consignment back. In the month of February 2019, when respondent No. 2 went to the Cold Storage to take his consignment back, then Crmp 2724 of 2024 3 petitioner No. 1 replied that his consignment is not available in the Cold Storage, and therefore, delivery of the consignment was not possible. Petitioners No. 2 and 3 have also given the same reply to respondent No. 2/complainant that his consignment is not available in the Cold Storage. Petitioners have also threatened him to submit the deposit slips which he has in his possession, or else they would kill him. Therefore, respondent No. 2 has filed a complaint case against the petitioners before the learned trial Court under Section 200 of the Cr.P.C. for the offence of Sections 420, 506, and 34 of I.P.C.
4. The complaint case filed by respondent No. 2 is registered vide order dated 08-10-2021 for the offence under Section 407 of the IPC. After service of the summons in the complaint case, pre-charge evidence was recorded, and after hearing the parties, the learned trial court framed the charge against the present petitioners for the offence of Section 407/34 of IPC vide order dated 04-03-2024.
5. The order dated 04-03-2024 passed by the learned trial court by which the charges have been framed against the petitioners has been challenged by them by filing Criminal Revision No. 19/2024, before the learned First Additional Sessions Judge, Manendragarh, District Koriya. The said Criminal Revision filed by the petitioners has also been dismissed vide order dated 29-08-2024, which is under challenge in the present petition.
Crmp 2724 of 2024 4
6. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the learned trial Court, as well as the revisional Court failed to appreciate the evidence available on record in its right perspective and came to an erroneous conclusion while framing the charge. They should have considered that the complainant had already withdrawn the entire Mahua flowers, which he kept in the Cold Storage in the month of April 2015. The complainant has admitted in his evidence before framing of charge that he has paid the requisite charges amounting to Rs. 18,000/- in the year 2016 itself. She would also submit that the documents obtained from Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti, Manendragarh, clearly reflect that respondent No. 2 has taken out the Mahua flowers from the Cold Storage and sold the same from time to time. There are no ingredients of the offence of Section 407 of IPC. It is also submitted by her that the complainant himself had cheated one Mohd. Tasaoor Ali, who lodged the report against the complainant and the FIR of Crime No. 169/2020 was registered against the complainant for the offence under Section 406, 420, 507, 34 of IPC, at police station Manendragarh. In that complaint, it was alleged that respondent No. 2 had not paid the amount of Rs. 19,10,612/- to Md. Tasaoor Ali, which was against the said Mahua flowers, kept in the Cold Storage of the present petitioners. Although the said FIR was quashed by the order dated 27-08-2024 (Cr.M.P. No. 1005/2024) by the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court on the ground of delay in lodging the report, it reflects that the Mahua flower stock was taken out from the Cold Storage by the present complainant himself. It is Crmp 2724 of 2024 5 also submitted that the said stock of Mahua flowers was deposited in the year 2015, whereas the report is lodged in the year 2019, which itself shows that the claim of the complainant is not genuine.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submitted that respondent No. 2 had filed a complaint case under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, before the District Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission, at Manendragarh, in which it was also averred that the report has been lodged in the year 2019. Therefore, there is no prima facie evidence available on record which shows the commission of offence under Section 407 of I.P.C. for framing of charge against the petitioners and the impugned order is liable to be set aside.
8. Learned counsel for the State would submit that the case instituted upon a private complaint and the dispute between the parties is related to their business transaction.
9. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents annexed with the petition.
10. From a bare perusal of the complaint memo (Annexure P-3), it appears that the complainant/respondent no. 2 has filed the complaint case against the petitioners/accused persons with the allegation that in between the period of 20-04-2015 to 26-04-2015, respondent no. 2 has deposited total 1,60,530 Tons of Mahua flowers in cold storage of the petitioners, for which receipts were issued in his favour. In the month of Crmp 2724 of 2024 6 February-2019, when the complainant/respondent No. 2 had gone to the Cold Storage of the petitioners for withdrawal of his consignment of Mahua flowers, he was informed that the said Mahua flowers are not available in their Cold Storage, and asked to deposit the receipts. When the prevailing practice is there that at the time of withdrawal of the consignment, the owner of the consignment was required to submit the receipt in original and then to take his consignment back after payment of charges, then the receipts should be in possession of the petitioners/accused persons that they have already delivered the consignment to the owner of the consignment. It can be expected that when they deliver the consignment from the cold storage, they would obtain acknowledgment of the same. The defence of the petitioners/accused persons is that the complainant/respondent no. 2 has already withdrawn the Mahua Flowers from the Cold Storage, and sold it to another person, but there is no any document/acknowledgment submitted by the petitioners/accused persons as to on which date that Mahua flowers were withdrawn by the complainant from the cold storage.
11. Further, from perusal of the order dated 27-08-2024 (Annexure P-
10) passed by Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in Cr.M.P. No. 1005/2021, it appears that the dispute between respondent no. 2 and Mohd. Tasaoor Ali was with respect to 52 Tons Mahua flowers, which were kept in Gopal Cold Storage in between the period of 06-04-2016 to 27-09-2018, but the present dispute between respondent no. 2/complainant and the petitioners/accused persons is with respect to the Crmp 2724 of 2024 7 Mahua flowers, which was deposited in Gopal Cold Storage between the period of 20-04-2015 to 26-04-2015, that too, with respect to a total stock of 1,60,530 Tons of Mahua flowers.
12. The learned trial Court while considering the case for framing the charge, has observed in its order that the accused persons have not produced any document, acknowledgment or register with respect to withdrawal of the Mahua flowers from the cold storage by the complainant/respondent no. 2, although from the receipts of CG Krishi Upaj Mandi Board, it appears that the complainant has sold 6 Trucks of Mahua flowers but it could not reflect that he sold the same Mahua flowers which he kept in the cold storage of the petitioners/accused persons. The learned trial court has also considered that there is evidence on record that the Mahua flowers were deposited in the cold storage of the accused persons but there is no evidence of its withdrawal from there, therefore, there is prima facie ingredients of the offence of Section 407 of I.P.C. available on record, and has framed charge for that offence vide order dated 04-03-2024.
13. The learned revisional court has also considered that the deposition of Mahua flowers in the cold storage by the complainant in the year 2015 is admitted by the accused persons but there is no document of its withdrawal from the cold storage and it is not possible in the common course of business that anyone can permit the owner of the consignment to withdraw such a huge quantity of consignment without any Crmp 2724 of 2024 8 receipt/acknowledgment. The learned revisional Court has also considered that the consignment of Mahua flowers sold by the complainant is the same that was kept in the cold storage is also not to be determined at this stage, and it could be decided after recording evidence of the parties.
14. The court has the power to sift and weigh the evidence for limited purpose of finding out whether or not a prima facie case against the accused person has been made out. The learned revisional Court has also held that the probative value of the evidence cannot be looked into at this stage and has dismissed the revision filed by the petitioners.
15. In the matter of State Vs. S. Selvi and another, 2018 (13) SCC 455, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in para 6 and 10 of its judgment, has held that:
"6. It is well settled by this Court in catena of judgments including the cases of Union of India v. Prafulla Samal, (1979) 3 SCC 4; Dilawar Babu vs. State of Maharashtra (2002) 2 SCC 135; Sajjan Kumar vs. CBI (2010) 9 SCC 368; State v. A.Arun Kumar (2015) 2 SCC 417; Sonu Gupta vs. Deepak Gupta (2015) 3 SCC 424; State of Orissa v. Debendra Nath Padhi (2003) 2 SCC 711; Niranjan Singh Karam Singh Punjabi etc. vs. Jitendra Bhimraj Bijjayya (1990) 4 SCC 76 and Superintendent & Remembrancer of Legal Affairs, West Bengal vs. Anil Kumar Bhunja (1979) 4 SCC 274 that the Judge while considering the question of framing charge under Section 227 of the Code in sessions cases (which is akin to Crmp 2724 of 2024 9 Section 239 Cr. P.C. pertaining to warrant cases) 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; where the material placed before the Court disclose grave suspicion against the accused which has not been properly explained, the Court will be fully justified in framing the charge; by and large if two views are equally possible and the Judge is satisfied that the evidence produced before him while giving rise to some suspicion but not grave suspicion against the accused, he will be fully within his rights to discharge the accused. The Judge cannot act merely as a Post Office or a mouth piece of the prosecution, but has to consider the broad probabilities of the case, the total effect of the statements and the documents produced before the Court, any basic infirmities appearing in the case and so on. This however does not mean that the Judge should make a roving enquiry into the pros and cons of the matter and weigh the materials as if he was conducting a trial.
10. If on the basis of the material on record, the Court would form prima facie opinion that the accused might have committed offence, it can frame charge, though for conviction it is required to be proved beyond reasonable doubt that the accused has committed the offence. At the time of framing of charges, the probative value of the material on record has to be gone into and the Court is not expected to go deep into the matter and hold that the materials would not warrant conviction. The Court is required to evaluate the material on record at the stage of Sections 227 or 239 of the Code, as the case may be, Crmp 2724 of 2024 10 only with a view to find out if the facts emerging therefrom taken at the face value discloses the existence of all the ingredients constituting the alleged offence. It is trite that at the stage of consideration of an application for discharge, the Court has to proceed with the presumption that material brought on record by the prosecution are true and evaluate such material with a view to find out whether the facts emerging therefrom taken at their face value disclose existence of the ingredients of the offence."
16. For the purpose of framing of charge, all that the Trial Court has to see is, whether on the basis of the material produced by the complainant, a prima facie case is made out or not. Even if a strong case of suspicion is made out, the Court is justified in framing of charge. From perusal of documents annexed with the petition, prima facie it appears that there was sufficient evidence available on record for framing of charge and to proceed with the trial against the accused persons/petitioners for the offence under Section 407/34 of IPC.
17. In Amit Kapoor Vs. Ramesh Chander and Another, 2012 (9) SCC 460, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has laid down the principle that inherent as well as revisional jurisdiction should be exercised cautiously. If the jurisdiction under the Code in relation to quashing of an FIR is circumscribed by the factum and caution afore noticed, in that event, the revisional jurisdiction, particularly while dealing with framing of charge, has to be even more limited. At the initial stage of framing of a charge, Crmp 2724 of 2024 11 the court is not concerned with the proof but with a strong suspicion that the accused has committed an offence, which, if put to trial, could prove him guilty. All that the court has to see is that the material on record and the facts would be compatible with the innocence of the accused or not. The final test of guilt is not applied at that stage.
18. In case of N. Sundaram Vs. P.K. Pounraj and Another, 2014 10 SCC 616, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in paragraph 13 of its judgment, has held that:
"13. It is well settled by this Court in a catena of cases that the power under Section 482 CrPC has to be exercised sparingly and cautiously to prevent the abuse of process of any court and to secure the ends of justice. [See State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal6] The inherent power should not be exercised to stifle a legitimate prosecution. The High Court should refrain from giving a prima facie decision unless there are compelling circumstances to do so. Taking the allegations and the complaint as they were, without adding or subtracting anything, if no offence was made out, only then the High Court would be justified in quashing the proceedings in the exercise of its power under Section 482 CrPC. [See MCD Vs. Ram Kishann Rohtagi7] An investigation should not be shut out at the threshold if the allegations have some substance." [See Vinod Raghuvanshi Vs. Ajay Arora8] Crmp 2724 of 2024 12
19. In the matter of State (NCT of Delhi) Vs. Shiv Charan Bansal and Others, 2020 (2) SCC 290, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that at the stage of framing of charge, the trial court is not required to conduct a meticulous appreciation of evidence or a roving inquiry into the same and has the power to sift and weigh the evidence for the limited purpose of finding out whether or not a prima facie case has been made out against the accused.
20. In the present case, after considering the evidence available on record, the trial Court rightly came into conclusion that there is sufficient ground for framing of charge, and to proceed with the trial and in pursuance thereof, has framed charge for the offence under Section 407/34 IPC against the petitioners/accused persons, which cannot be said to be either perverse or contrary to the facts of the case calling for an interference invoking extraordinary inherent powers under Section 528 of BNSS, 2023, conferred upon this Court.
21. In the result, the petition having no merit, the same is liable to be and it is hereby dismissed.
Sd/-
(Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) JUDGE padma