Madhya Pradesh High Court
Nitin vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 1 September, 2015
Author: Jarat Kumar Jain
Bench: Jarat Kumar Jain
-: 1:- Cr.R. No.13 of 2015
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, JABALPUR
BENCH INDORE
( Single Bench )
( Hon'ble Shri Justice Jarat Kumar Jain )
Cr.R. No.13 of 2015
Nitin S/o Poonamchand
VERSUS
State of M.P.
*****
Smt. Sudha Shrivastava, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Amit Singh Sisodiya, learned Dy. Govt. Advocate for the non-
applicant/State.
*****
O R D E R
( Passed on this 1st day of September, 2015 ) THIS revision application has been filed under Section 397 read with Section 401 of Cr.P.C. against the order dated 27.09.2014 passed by the 11th Additional Sessions Judge, Indore in ST No.323/2014 whereby charges under Section 420, 467 and 468 of the IPC have been framed against the applicant.
[2] Brief facts of this case are that Vinod Singh Thakur, Sub Inspector of Chandan Nagar Police Station, Indore received a secret information that Larcenious Truck -: 2:- Cr.R. No.13 of 2015 bearing registration No.MP-15-H-1090 is parked near Chandan Nagar Police Station then he reached at the spot and seized the truck from the possession of co-accused Dilshad. On searching the truck apart from other documents one FIR in regard to Crime No.1053/2013 registered at Police Station Lasudiya, Indore for the offence under Section 379 of the IPC was also recovered. In the FIR it is stated that the Truck No.MP09-HG-5333 has been stolen. Sub Inspector Rathore verified the said FIR from Lasudiya Police Station then it was disclosed that no such FIR was registered at the Police Station Lasudiya. On interrogation co-accused Dilshad disclosed that he had procured the said FIR on payment of Rs.50,000/- to applicant Nitin Sagar, with an intention to submit a claim before the Insurance Company. Thereafter applicant Nitin was apprehended, he disclosed that the co-accused Vinod had made many forged FIRs and provided to him and he has sold forged FIRs to many persons. On this basis Crime No.199/2014 was registered at Chandan Nagar Police Station for the offences under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B of the IPC against the applicant Nitin Sagar, Dilshad and Vinod. After investigation final report has been filed against 7 persons including applicant Nitin.
-: 3:- Cr.R. No.13 of 2015
[3] Considering the material on record. Learned Additional Sessions Judge by the impugned order framed the charges under Sections 420, 467 and 468 of the IPC against the accused persons. Being aggrieved applicant Nitin has preferred this revision.
[4] Learned Counsel for the applicants submits that there is no material on record for framing the charges against the applicant under Sections 420, 467 and 468 of the IPC. For the offence of cheating, inducement and fraudulent intention to deceive the complainant is necessary which is lacking in this case, therefore, offence under Section 420 of the IPC is not made out.
[5] Learned Counsel for the applicants further submits that the alleged forged FIRs are not on record and on the basis of photocopy of the alleged forged FIRs charge was framed, besides this no incriminating article which was used for preparation of forged FIRs has been recovered from the possession of the applicant. The applicant has been implicated only on the basis of the memorandum of co- accused Dilshad recorded under Section 27 of the Evidence Act. Such memorandum cannot be used as an evidence against the applicant, thus there is no material against the applicant to frame the charges under Sections 420, 467 and -: 4:- Cr.R. No.13 of 2015 468 of the IPC, therefore, the impugned order is liable to be set aside and the applicant be discharged from the aforesaid charges.
[6] On the other hand, learned Govt. Advocate vehemently opposes the prayer and submits that learned Additional Sessions Judge after considering the material has properly framed the charges, thus, there is no substance in this revision and the same is liable to be dismissed.
[7] After hearing learned Counsel for the parties, perused the record. It reveals that from the possession of co- accused Dilshad one FIR of Crime No.1053/2013 for the offence punishable under Section 379 of the IPC purported to be registered at Police Station Lasudiya, Indore has been recovered. But on verification it was disclosed that no such FIR was registered at Police Station Lasudiya. On interrogation Dilshad disclosed that he procured the FIR on payment of Rs.50,000/- to applicant Nitin, then applicant Nitin was apprehended and on his disclosure statement four forged FIRs were recovered from his possession. He also disclosed that the forged FIRs were prepared by the co- accused Vinod Dangi with an intention to present the forged FIRs before the Insurance Company and to recover the claim.
-: 5:- Cr.R. No.13 of 2015
[8] For the offence under Section 420 of the IPC inducement and fraudulent intention to deceive the complainant is necessary ingredient. In the present case there is no evidence that the applicant Nitin has cheated any person. Thus, I am convinced with the argument of learned Counsel for the applicant that there is no material against the applicant to frame the charge under Section 420 of the IPC.
[9] For the offence under Section 467 of the IPC forgery of valuable security is the main ingredient. In the present case forged FIRs were prepared with an intention to submit false claim and recover the amount from the Insurance Company. Thus, the FIR is a valuable security. It is not correct that the applicant has been implicated only on the basis of memorandum of co-accused, on the disclosure statement of applicant forged reports have been recovered from his possession and co-accused Vinod Dangi has been apprehended. Thereafter from the possession of co-accused Vinod pen drive and other incriminating articles were recovered. Thus, there is sufficient evidence against the applicant for framing the charges under Sections 467 and 468 of the IPC.
[10] With the aforesaid discussion, I am of the view that learned Additional Sessions Judge should have framed -: 6:- Cr.R. No.13 of 2015 the charges against the applicant for the offence under Sections 467 and 468 with the aid of Section 120-B of the IPC, however, there is no material against the applicant to frame the charge under Section 420 of the IPC. Thus, the revision is partly allowed and the applicant is discharged from the charge under Section 420 of the IPC.
[ JARAT KUMAR JAIN ] JUDGE ns -: 7:- Cr.R. No.13 of 2015 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, JABALPUR BENCH INDORE ( Single Bench ) ( Hon'ble Shri Justice Jarat Kumar Jain ) Cr.R. No.13 of 2015 Nitin S/o Poonamchand VERSUS State of M.P. ORDER ( Reserved on 20.07.2015) POST FOR 01.09.2015 ( JARAT KUMAR JAIN) JUDGE 31-08-2015