Madhya Pradesh High Court
Basant Kumar Maheshwari vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 15 June, 2022
Author: Rajeev Kumar Shrivastava
Bench: Rajeev Kumar Shrivastava
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE RAJEEV KUMAR SHRIVASTAVA
MCRC 40498 of 2020
BETWEEN
BASANT KUMAR MAHESHWARI,
SON OF LATE SHRI LAXMI
NARAYAN JI MAHESHWARI,
AGED 65 YEARS, OCCUPATION:-
ADVOCATE, RESIDENT- ARIHANT
VIHAR, KHARI FATAK, VIDISHA,
DISTRICT VIDISHA (MP).
........PETITIONER
(BY SHRI AMIT LAHOTI, COUNSEL)
AND
1. STATE OF M.P. THROUGH
SHO, POLICE STATION CITY
KOTWALI, VIDISHA, DISTRICT
VIDISHA (MP)
2. SYNDICATE BANK BRANCH
VIDISHA THROUGH ITS BRANCH
MANAGER, VIDISHA (MP)
........RESPONDENTS
[SMT. PADMSHRI AGRAWAL, PANEL LAWYER FOR THE
RESPONDENT NO.1/STATE AND SHRI RAVI CHAUDHARY,
COUNSEL FOR RESPONDENT NO.2/ BANK]
Reserved on : 02-05-2022
Passed on : 15th of June, 2022
2
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
This petition coming on for final hearing, this Court passed the
following:
ORDER
This petition under Section 482 of CrPC has been preferred by petitioner seeking quashment of FIR as well as charge-sheet in connection with Crime No.449 of 2013 registered against thim at Police Station Kotwali, District Vidisha for commission of offences under Sections 420, 467, 468, 419, 471, 120-B of IPC and other consequential criminal proceedings initiated therefrom. (2) Facts giving rise to the present petition, in short, are that the petitioner had submitted a false search report before the Syndicate Bank, Vidisha whereby co-accused Gappu and Santosh had obtained loan of Rs.3 lac by producing some forged revenue documents and Khasra entries and when this matter came to the knowledge of the petitioner, he thereafter informed the Bank authorities. On basis of receiving information, impugned FIR has been got registered on 20 th July, 2013. Matter was investigated and it was found that petitioner is found involved in the alleged offences so that his name has been arrayed as an accused in impugned FIR and after completion of 3 investigation, a charge sheet was filed against petitioner along with other co-accused persons. Hence, this petition.
(3) It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner has no active role, either of cheating or of committing forgery and no case is made out against him for commission of alleged offence as the ingredients of Section 464 of IPC are lacking. Initially, the petitioner had informed the Bank authorities regarding the preparation of forged and fabricated documents by other co-accused persons for getting loan amount. It is further submitted that the petitioner is a practicing Lawyer in the District Court Vidisha, aged around 65 years and he has already given an intimation/information to the Bank authorities vide Annexure P1. The Bank authorities have been acted in connivance with the above said co-accused for obtaining the loan amount from the Bank concerned and no individual role is attributed against petitioner as after verifying documents he has already returned the alleged amount of Rs.400/- paid by other co-accused persons by intimating the Bank to the effect that the said amount has wrongly been transacted in his account. After registration of the FIR, petitioner made his statement under Section 161 of CrPC before police authorities and controverted the allegations made by the complainant and gave his 4 signature in order to ascertain the factum of signature in the search report made by him. All of a sudden, in the year 2020, the name of petitioner has been impleaded as as accused without furnishing or supplying any material to him. The impugned FIR has been lodged at the instance of complainant as well as the then Bank Manager. The then Bank Manager of the Bank is the main accused and no specific role is assigned against the petitioner as the petitioner who is the person, had prepared a search report on the basis of documents furnished by the co-accused persons and not otherwise. It is further contended that the format of search report prepared by some other person(s) in fraudulent manner as the same was never notarized by petitioner nor any identification was made by petitioner. Hence, no case is made out against the petitioner. Therefore, it is prayed that the impugned FIR as well as other criminal proceedings initiated against him for commission of aforesaid offences is liable to be quashed and present petition deserves to be allowed.
(4) On the other hand, it is submitted by the counsel for the State as well as complainant/ Bank that as per the contents of FIR, there is a specific role against the petitioner in producing a false search report before the Bank by which the impugned FIR has been lodged and 5 thereafter, charge sheet has been filed against petitioner, which requires no interference by this Court at this stage. Hence, prayed for dismissal of this petition.
(5) Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused dthe ocuments available on record.
(6) From perusal of contents of FIR as well as the charge sheet, it is crystal clear that a lawyer or an advocate or a technical expert like engineer etc. is not liable for prosecution if the documents submitted or produced by the co-accused persons for personal purpose like grant of loan from the bank or financial institution, are found to be forged or fabricated as their evidence is based on record made available by the bank or financial institution. The documents produced by the co- accused persons for legal scrutiny after taking the same for its genuineness or correctness, are required from the revenue records or other evidence made available by the authority concerned and not otherwise. In the present matter, that was not being done so far. There is no direct or indirect evidence available against the petitioner in connection with other co-accused persons and the petitioner has only given a search report on the basis of documents available with other co-accused persons as well as the evidence produced in the Bank and 6 not otherwise. The petitioner is not only an expert to ascertain as to whether the documents produced by other co-accused persons are proper or not. The prosecution has not made any attempt to record the statement of the petitioner before framing of charges but in the case at hand, the prosecution has failed in its duty to scrutinize the documents on which the Bank concerned has disbursed the loan amount in question to other co-accused persons. A mere bald allegations made against the petitioner cannot be sustained in the eyes of law without accompanying the evidence in proper and perspective manner. Various guidelines have been laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in catena of decisions that on what basis, it must be considered while deciding the matter in regard to discharge of accused from criminal offences or liability. One of the most points is that the Court must not be a mere post-office or a mouthpiece of the prosecution and the Court should have to consider the broader principle of law and the effect of evidence and documents produced before it or any infirmities without conducting any roving or detailed inquiry conducted by Investigating Officer concerned. In the case at hand, the complaint or FIR lodged by complainant is based only on the the basis of vague allegations by which the impugned charge-sheet has been filed against the petitioner, 7 which is contrary as well as foreign to law.
(7) In the light of above observation, this petition deserves to be and is hereby allowed. Impugned FIR as well as charge-sheet in connection with Crime No.449 of 2013 registered against petitioner at Police Station Kotwali, District Vidisha for offences punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468, 419, 471, 120-B of IPC and other consequential criminal proceedings initiated therefrom, are hereby quashed and the petitioner is liable to be discharged from the offences levelled against him.
(8) Let a copy of this order be sent to the concerned police station as well as Court concerned for information.
(RAJEEV KUMAR SHRIVASTAVA) JUDGE MKB Digitally signed by MAHENDRA BARIK Date: 2022.06.15 18:59:34 +05'30'