Madhya Pradesh High Court
Shahjad Khan @ Sahid Musalman vs State Of Madhya Pradesh on 2 December, 2019
Author: Rajeev Kumar Dubey
Bench: Rajeev Kumar Dubey
1 CRR.1533/2019
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
PRINCIPAL SEAT AT JABALPUR
Single Bench : Hon'ble Shri Rajeev Kumar Dubey, J.
Criminal Revision No.1533/2019
Shahjad Khan @ Sahid Musalman and Anr.
vs.
State of M.P. & Anr.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shri Arun Kumar Nema, counsel for the applicants.
Shri Mahendra Chaubey, G.A. for the respondent / State.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ORDER
Reserved on : 29/11/2019 Delivered on : 02/12/2019 This criminal revision has been filed under Section 397 r/w Section 401 of Cr.P.C. against the order dated 17.01.2019 passed in S.T. No.246/2018 whereby learned VIII Additional Sessions Judge, Jabalpur framed charge against the applicants Shahjad Khan @ Shahid and Sajid Khan for the offence punishable under Section 120B of the IPC.
2. As per prosecution case, Kumari Sujata Patel, who did a private job met co-accused Mohammad Rizwan in connection with business. He introduced himself to Sujata as Laddu Patel, resident of Purnia Bihar and proposed to her for marriage. On that, Sujata Patel asked co-accused Mohammad Rizwan to talk about her marriage to her family members. So, on 20.02.2018 at 2:30 pm co-accused, Rizwan along with applicant No.2 Sheikh Shajid went to Sujata Patel's house situated at village Janor, Kareli and met with complainant Dharmendra, Sujata's brother, Smt. Yashoda her mother and Sonam her sister . He introduced himself to them as Laddu Patel S/o Sunil Patel and also showed 2 CRR.1533/2019 his identity card to them in which his name was mentioned as Laddu Patel and proposed his marriage to Sujata. They agreed to marry Sujata with co-accused Mohammad Rizwan, knowing that the accused is a Hindu and the wedding was scheduled to be held in Gulzar Hotel Jabalpur on 10/03/18. Meanwhile, Yogesh Agrawal came to know that co-accused Mohammad Rizwan is marrying a Hindu girl Sujata Patel, posing himself to be a Hindu boy Laddu Patel and the marriage is going to be held at 1 pm in Gulzar Hotel. Yogesh Agrawal informed the SHO, Police Station Madan Mahal. On that ASI, Kanak Singh Baghel, Police Station Madan Mahal, along with police force went to Gulzar Hotel and enquired into the matter and also contacted complainant Dharmendra brother of Sujata Patel. Thereafter, complainant, Dharmendra Patel inquired the matter and found that co-accused Rizwan, who was a Muslim, is marring with his sister Sujata Patel by cheating him and his family members, posing himself as a Hindu boy. Applicant No.2 Shajid Khan was also involved in the crime. On that, complainant Dharmendra Patel lodged a report at the police station Madan Mahal. On that report police registered Crime No.125/2018 for the offence punishable under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 120B IPC at police station Madan Mahal against co-accused Rizwan and applicant No.2 Shajid Khan and arrested them and also seized forged Adhar card, identity card, voter ID and other documents from the possession of co-accused Rizwan @ Laddu Patel. During the investigation, it was also found that applicant No.1 Shahjad Khan @ Sahid Musalman was also involved in the crime and he had booked a room in Gulzar hotel for staying of co-accused Rizwan and applicant No.2 Shajid Khan and also booked a hall in the said hotel for the marriage of co-accused Rizwan with Sujata. On that police also seized concerned record of Gulzar Hotel and arrested applicant No.1 Shahjad Khan @ Sahid Musalman. During investigation Police also recorded the case diary statements of Dharmendra Patel, Yashoda mother of Sujata Patel, Sonam sister of Sujata, Sujata Patel, Santosh Pathya, Mukesh patel, Mahaveer Singh, Rajendra Patel and Suresh Patel and filed charge sheet against the applicant No.1 Shahjad Khan @ Sahid Musalman, applicant No.2 Shajid Khan and co-accused Rizwan before JMFC Jabalpur, who committed the case to the Court of Sessions. On that, S.T. No. 246/2018 was registered. Learned VIII ASJ, Jabalpur tried the case and vide order dated 17.01.2019 framed charge against the applicants Shahjad Khan @ 3 CRR.1533/2019 Sahid Musalman and Shajid Khan for the offence punishable under Section 120B of the IPC. Being aggrieved from that order applicants filed this petition.
3. Learned counsel for the applicants submitted that against applicant No.1Shahjad Khan @ Sahid Musalman there is no evidence on record to connect him with the crime. Name of applicant No.1 Shahjad Khan @ Sahid Musalman is mentioned neither in the FIR nor in the case diary statements of prosecution witnesses i.e. Dharmendra Patel, Jashoda, mother of Sujata Patel, Sonam sister of Sujata, Sujata Patel, Santosh Pathya, Mukesh patel, Mahaveer Singh, Rajendra Patel and Suresh Patel recorded by the police under Section 161 of Cr.P.C nor in the memorandum of co-accused Rizwan @ Laddu. Police implicated applicant No. 1 in the crime only on the basis that the copy of Aadhar Card of applicant No.1 was found in the possession of co-accused Rizwan. While only on that basis it cannot be said that applicant No.1 was also involved in the crime. Likewise only evidence against applicant No.2 is that when co-accused Rizwan went to Sujata's house to meet her family members, applicant No.2 Sheikh Shajid was also with him. But only on that basis it cannot be said that applicant No.2 was also involved in the crime. Learned trial court wrongly framed charge against the applicants for the offence punishable under Section 120B of the IPC. So applicants be discharged from the charge.
4. Per Contra, learned counsel for the State opposed the prayer and submitted that from the record of Gulzar Hotel seized by the police it is clear that room for co-accused Rizwan @ Laddu's stay in the hotel was booked by applicant No.1 Shahzad Khan @ Shahid. Even the venue for the marriage of co-accused Rizwan @ Laddu was booked by applicant No.1 Shahzad Khan @ Shahid and police also seized copy of PAN Card, driving license and voter identity card of applicant No. 1 from the hotel record which clearly shows that applicant No.1 Shahzad Khan @ Shahid was involved in the crime. From the statement of prosecution witnesses, it is apparent that when co-accused Rizwan went to Sujata's house to meet her family members, applicant No.2 Sheikh Shajid was also with him which again shows applicant No. 2's involvement in the crime. So learned trial court did not commit any mistake in framing charge against the applicants for the offence punishable under section 120B of the IPC.
5. This Court has gone through the record and arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties. Hon'ble apex court in Hem chand Vs. St. of 4 CRR.1533/2019 Jharkhand reported in (2008) 5 SCC 113 has held that at the stage of framing of charge, Court exercises a limited jurisdiction. It has to see whether prima facie case has been made out or not, concerned of the Court should be to see whether the case of probable conviction for commission of an offence has been made out on the basis of the materials found during investigation. It would ordinarily not consider whether accused would be able to establish his defence if any. In Bharat Parikh Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and another, (2008) 10 SCC 109 also Hon'ble Court held that while framing charge the trial Court can only look into the materials produced by the prosecution while giving an opportunity to the accused to show that the said materials were insufficient for the purpose of framing charge. At the stage of framing of charge, the submissions on behalf of the accused have to be confined to the material produced by the investigating agency. In Soma Chakravarty Vs. State through CBI, (2007) 5 SCC 403 held that at the stage of framing of charge-Material brought on record has to be accepted true. In-State Of Orissa Vs. Debendra Nath Padhi, AIR 2003 SC 1512 Hon'ble apex court considered the matter in detail and held that at the stage of framing of charge the defence of the accused cannot be considered. In the matter of Sheoraj Singh Ahlawat and others Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and another, (2013) 11 SCC 476, Their Lordships of the Supreme Court, while reiterating the law laid down in Debendra Nath Padhi's case (supra), have clearly held that at the time of framing charge, the accused is entitled to urge his contentions only on materials submitted by the prosecution, he is not entitled to produce any material at this stage and the Court is not required to consider any such material, if submitted.
6. This shows that at the time of framing of a charge what the trial court is required to, and can consider is only the police report referred to under Section 173 Cr.P.C. and the documents sent with it. For framing of charge strong suspicion about the commission of the offence and accused's involvement in offence is sufficient. On merits, materials/ documents filed by accused cannot be considered. The material produced by prosecution alone is to be considered. Roving inquiry and mini-trial is not permissible. Defence of accused is not relevant. The only right the accused has at that stage is of being heard and nothing beyond that. Accused is competent to make his submissions only on the material supplied by the prosecution.
5 CRR.1533/20197. If we examine the instant case in light of the above pronouncement of the Apex Court, from the charge-sheet it is apparent that on 20.02.2018 co- accused Rizwan went to Sujata Patel's house situated at village Janor, Kareli and met Kumari Sujata's brother, complainant Dharmendra, mother Smt. Yashoda and sister Sonam. At that time he introduced himself to them as Laddu Patel and also showed his identify card to them in which his name was mentioned as Laddu Patel and proposed his marriage to Sujata. At that time applicant No.2, Sheikh Shajid was also with him which prima facie shows his involvement in the crime. Likewise from the record of Gulzar Hotel seized by the police it is clear that room for stay of co-accused Rizwan @ Laddu and two other persons, was booked on the basis of I.D. proof of applicant No.1 Shahzad Khan @ Shahid. Even the venue for marriage of co-accused Rizwan @ Laddu was also booked on the basis of I.D. proof of applicant No.1 Shahzad Khan @ Shahid. In the Hotel's record seized by the police it is mentioned that the room and marriage Hall for the marriage of co-accused Rizwan was booked in the name of applicant No.1 Shahzad Khan @ Shahid and police also seized copy of PAN Card, Driving license and voter identity card of applicant No. 1 from the hotel record on which photo of applicant No.1 is allegedly attached and on the basis of that I.D. proof Room and Marriage Hall were booked which prima facie shows the involvement of the applicant No.1 Shahzad Khan @ Shahid in the crime. Therefore from the charge-sheet prima facie offence under Section 420 r/w Section 120 B of IPC is made out against the applicants. So applicants cannot be discharged.
Hence the petition is dismissed with the liberty that the applicants are free to raise all their objections before the trial Court at the appropriate stage.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge sarathe Digitally signed by NAVEEN KUMAR SARATHE Date: 2019.12.03 10:49:08 +05'30' 6 CRR.1533/2019