Madhya Pradesh High Court
Sanjay Chaturvedi vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh Thr on 1 December, 2016
Author: S.K.Awasthi
Bench: S.K.Awasthi
-( 1 )- CRR No. 21/2016
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
BENCH AT GWALIOR
SINGLE BENCH
BEFORE JUSTICE S.K.AWASTHI
Criminal Revision No 21/2016
Sanjay Chaturvedi
Versus
State of Madhya Pradesh
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Shri D.R.Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Neelesh Singh Tomar, learned Panel Lawyer for the
State.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
ORDER
(01.12.2016 ) The applicant is assailing the order dated 26.10.2015, whereby the Court of Session, Shivpuri in Sessions Trial No. 165/2015 has relegated the matter to the Chief Judicial Magistrate under Section 228 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for brevity, the CrPC) on the ground that perusal of the charge sheet reveals commission of offences punishable under Sections 420 and 423 of the Indian Panel Code (in short, IPC) whereas the ingredients of Sections 467 and Section 468 of IPC are not made out. Therefore, the offences are triable by the Court of Magistrate First Class.
2. The present applicant/accused is aggrieved by the portion of the impugned order to the extent it relates to instructions to Chief Judicial Magistrate to proceed under Section 228 of CrPC, as the ingredients of Sections 420 and 423 of IPC are apparent. According to the applicant, there is no fraud attributable to the present applicant. The declaration made by him with respect to diversion of the land is based on the order passed by Sub-Divisional -( 2 )- CRR No. 21/2016 Officer, Shivpuri (MP). Accordingly, no charges can be framed against the present applicant and therefore, he ought to have been discharged by the Court below from all the offences alleged against him. Further, it has been contended that the observation of the Court in order dated 26.10.2015 will prejudice the Chief Judicial Magistrate as once the proceeding is held to have been triable by the Magistrate, then whether the offence is made out or not, is left to the discretion of the Court trying the offence.
3. I have given my anxious consideration to the contentions raised by the parties and have examined the record.
4. The contention of the applicant that ingredients of Section 420 and Section 423 of IPC are not made out seems to be prima facie unsustainable. The statement recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. clearly points finger at the present applicant about incorrect declaration that the entire Khasra is diverted whereas as per the documents, only a part of the Khasra was diverted.
5. Even the contention of the applicant that the present proceedings have been drawn at the behest of the neighbor of the present applicant to wreak vengeance is also not sustainable for the reason that the FIR has been registered at the information given by the Tahsildar, Shivpuri (MP) on the direction of Sub-Divisional Officer.
6. The contention of the applicant that the observation made in the order will prejudice the Court below is also without any basis and the answer to this contention is the plain reading of Section 228 of Cr.P.C. This Court is abstaining from the detailed discussion on the facts of -( 3 )- CRR No. 21/2016 the case and the allegations made as the same may prejudice or influence the trial Court.
7. In this view of the matter, the criminal revision is dismissed as being without merits. It is made clear that the observations made in this order are prima facie in nature and it is for the trial Court to arrive at a finding about the guilt of the present applicant on appreciation of evidence to be placed on record.
A copy of the order be sent to the trial court for information.
(S.K.Awasthi) Judge.
(yogesh)