Madhya Pradesh High Court
Dushyant Singh Sikarwar vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 22 August, 2017
Author: S.K.Awasthi
Bench: S.K.Awasthi
-( 1 )- CRR No. 400/2014
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
BENCH AT GWALIOR
SINGLE BENCH
BEFORE JUSTICE S.K.AWASTHI
Criminal Revision No. 400/2014
Dushyant Singh Sikarwar & others
Versus
State of Madhya Pradesh and another
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shri P.S.Bhadoriya, Advocate for the applicants.
Shri Kuldeep Singh, learned Public Prosecutor for the
respondent No.1/State.
Shri Pradeep Kumar Shrivastava, Advocate for the
respondent No.2.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ORDER
(22.08.2017) This revision application takes exception to the order dated 23.5.2014 passed in Sessions Trial No.199/2014 by V Additional Sessions Judge, Gwalior, whereby the trial Court has framed the charges against the applicants for commission of offences punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468 and 471 read with Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, the 'IPC').
2. Facts necessary for adjudication of the present revision application are that the Police Station Kotwali, Lashkar, Gwalior received a complaint issued under the signature of Chief Manager, Bank of Baroda, Branch Sarafa Bazar informing about the account opened by applicants No.2 and 3 on 24.11.2006 for securing loan facility from the Bank. It was mentioned that the applicants submitted an application for loan facility on 25.11.2006 coupled with an affidavit declaring that the applicants have not taken any loan from any other bank and that the property in question is free from all encumbrances. It has been pointed out that the same title deed presented before the Bank of Baroda for loan facility -( 2 )- CRR No. 400/2014 was also presented before the State Bank of Indore, based on which State Bank of Indore had given the loan facility to the applicants on 18.8.2004. Therefore, it was urged that, firstly the applicants have submitted wrong affidavit about the status of the property in question and secondly, have also furnished forged title deed for securing the loan facility from the Bank whereas, the original title deed was deposited with the State Bank of Indore at the time of making an application on 18.8.2004. The Bank felt suspicion about the applicants on account of their conduct as after receiving the loan amount they have stopped coming to the Bank to avoid making payment of monthly installments.
3. The concerned Police Station after receiving the compliant from the Bank registered an FIR bearing Crime No.223 on 27.7.2009 for the offence punishable under Section 420 IPC. However, later on, during course of the investigation, the Police unearthed several other illegalities committed by the applicants and presented the charge sheet for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 422 and 424 IPC.
4. After filing of the charge sheet before the competent Court of jurisdiction, the trial matured to the stage of framing of charges which was done on 23.5.2014 by the trial Court and the charges mentioned in the opening paragraph of this order have been framed against the applicants. The applicants before this Court have challenged the impugned order dated 23.5.2014.
5. Learned counsel for the applicants has submitted that there is no clinching evidence available on record against the present applicants for framing of charge under the provisions mentioned in the memo of charge. He has further contended that bare reading of the complaint goes to show that the applicants have made a wrong declaration -( 3 )- CRR No. 400/2014 about the status of the property; however, the same does not tantamount to making of a false document or forgery, rather at best it would be an act of wrong declaration on affidavit which is an offence of lesser punishment than the offence charged against the applicants. He has further submitted that perusal of the documents seized by the Police goes to show that the role of the applicant No.1 was only confined to introduction of applicants No.2 and 3 and there is no participation in furnishing of false affidavit and the subsequent false declaration on affidavit.
6. It has been vehemently argued by learned counsel for the applicants that the material collected against the applicants is not sufficient to convict the applicants and therefore, no fruitful purpose would be served to frame the charges against them when the apparent outcome of the trial is acquittal. Therefore, he has urged that the order of trial Court framing charges deserves to be interfered with by this Court.
7. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent has taken this Court through the documents seized by the Police and that of the case diary and subsequent charge sheet filed before the trial Court to submit that the complaint made by Chief Manager of Bank of Baroda on 19.5.2009 is itself sufficient to sustain the charges framed by the trial Court because there is specific allegation that they have created forged title deed which was an exact match of original title deed in order to secure the loan facility from the Bank. Therefore, he has submitted that at the stage of framing of charge, the Court cannot be expected to give its findings on the veracity of the documents which are yet to be proved before the trial Court and therefore, this is not a fit case warranting interference.www.
-( 4 )- CRR No. 400/20148. I have carefully considered the rival contentions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and have perused the case diary. This Court has no illusion about the scope of consideration at the stage of framing of charge and the limitations set out by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in several judicial pronouncements; therefore, it would be appropriate to first discuss about the parameter for consideration of the instant revision application against the order framing charge before adverting to the merits of the contentions.
9. Scope of consideration at the stage of framing of charges has been well defined by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Chitresh v. State, (2009) 16 SCC 605, in the following manner :
"25. It is trite that at the stage of framing of charge, the court is required to evaluate the material and documents on record with a view to finding out if the facts emerging therefrom, taken at their face value, disclose the existence of all the ingredients constituting the alleged offence or offences. For this limited purpose, the court may sift the evidence as it cannot be expected even at the initial stage to accept as gospel truth all that the prosecution states. At this stage, the court has to consider the material only with a view to find out if there is ground for "presuming"
that the accused has committed an offence and not for the purpose of arriving at the conclusion that it is not likely to lead to a conviction."
10. In the context of the portion reproduced hereinabove, if the facts of the present case are examined, then there is no hesitation in the mind of this Court to hold that the trial Court has not committed any error in framing the charges against the appellants. The design employed by the applicants is quite visible from the documents brought on record that the applicants used the title deed dated 30.6.2004 for making an application before the State -( 5 )- CRR No. 400/2014 Bank of Indore on 18.8.2004 for securing loan facility and after availing the same, the applicants have committed default in making payment of the monthly installments. In the same manner, the applicants have forged identical title deed for securing the loan facility from the Bank of Baroda and have made false declaration about the encumbrances attached to the property and thereby securing loan of Rs.6.50 Lakhs from Bank of Baroda. Thus, it will be too early in the day to segregate the role ascribed to each one of the applicants as regards their common design to secure the loan facility from the Bank and any indulgence at this stage will only take away an opportunity available to the prosecution to demonstrate the guilt of the present applicants in commission of the alleged offence. However, this Court is abstaining from making any specific remarks on the veracity of the documents brought along with charge sheet about the involvement of the applicants in the commission of the crime, because the same may influence the outcome of the trial.
11. For these reasons, the present revision application is dismissed. However, the trial Court is directed to proceed with the trial without being influenced by the observations made in this order.
(S.K.Awasthi)
(Yog) Judge