Madhya Pradesh High Court
Smt.Rajeshwari Tomar vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 17 November, 2017
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH BENCH GWALIOR
(Single Bench -- Rajendra Mahajan J.)
Criminal Revision No. 279 of 2014
1. Smt. Rajeshwari W/o Shri
Mahendra Singh Tomar aged 70
years R/o Advocate Colony
Ambah distt. Morena (M.P.).
2. Smt. Bitti Bai @ Rajabeti W/o Shri
Babu Singh aged 81 years R/o
Mahaphal ka Pura Ambah
distt. Morena (M.P.). Applicants
Versus
1. State of M.P. through Police Station
Ambah distt. Morena (M.P.).
2. Keshav Singh S/o Late Shri
Girbar Singh Tomar aged 68 years
R/o Porsa Road Ambah distt.
Morena (M.P.). Respondents
For the applicants :- Shri Ankur Modi, learned
counsel.
For respondent No. :- Shri Rajesh Pathak, learned
1/State Public Prosecutor.
For respondent No. :- Shri Purshottam Rai, learned
2/complainant. counsel.
2
CRR No. 279/2014
ORDER
(Passed on the 17th day of November 2017) The applicants have filed this criminal revision under Section 397 read with 401 of the CrPC against the order dated 28/1/2014 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge Ambah district Morena in Sessions Trial No. 81/2011, whereby the learned ASJ has framed the charges against the applicants for the offences punishable under Sections 120-B, 467, 468 and 471 of the IPC besides other accused persons.
2. The facts which are necessary for disposal of the criminal revision are given below:-
(2.1). On 12/8/2007, respondent No. 2/complainant had filed a written private complaint under the provisions of Section 200 CrPC before the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class Ambah for the prosecution of the applicants and seventeen other persons for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 500 IPC. The substance of the complaint is thus: the Dayanand Arya Shiksha Samiti Ambah 3 CRR No. 279/2014 (for short "the samiti") is a registered society under the provisions of the Madhya Pradesh Society Registration Adhiniyam 1973 and amended Rules 1998. The samiti runs two educational institutions at Ambah with the grant provided by the Government of Madhya Pradesh. The samiti has registered Niyamavli (body of rules for election of its office-bearers). He is the founder and lifetime member of the samiti and he had been elected president of the samiti. On 23/8/2005, for some reasons, the Government of Madhya Pradesh had dissolved the samiti and the Sub Divisional Magistrate Morena has been appointed the Administrator of the samiti. During the incumbency of Administrator of the samiti, Badan Singh Tomar (now dead), the accused, and his companions had entered into a criminal conspiracy with an objective to take control of the samiti, its educational institutions and properties. Thereupon, he founded a parallel education samiti with his family members and persons of vested 4 CRR No. 279/2014 interests. He (Badan Singh Tomar) and his companions made Jaipal Singh, the accused, as Election Officer to hold the election of the office bearers of the samiti. On 10/12/2006, Jaipal Singh, under the chairmanship of Babu Singh Tomar, the president of general body of the samiti, held the election in which Badan Singh, the accused, is elected as Mantri (Office President) of the Samiti and other persons named in the FIR are elected as office-bearers. After the election, the proceedings were drawn and Krishna Das Porwal, the representative of the teachers and the accused, was authorized to submit the proceedings before Shri Vijay Agrawal, the then SDM Morena, for his perusal and to obtain his approval over the election. However, the proceedings had never been put up before him and his signature is forged and below it the seal of his official designation is stamped on the election proceedings dated 10/12/2006 with the criminal intention that he has approved the 5 CRR No. 279/2014 elections of office bearers of the samiti. Thus, the persons named in the complaint be prosecuted for committing the aforestated offences. (2.2). The learned JMFC sent the complaint under the provisions of Section 156 (3) CrPC to the SHO Police Station Ambah. On the basis of the complaint, the Poilce Ambah recorded an FIR on 11/8/2007 and registered a case at Crime No. 298/2007 against all the persons who are named as accused persons in the complaint. In the course of investigation, the police found that said Krishna Das Porwal is solely responsible for forging the signature of Vijay Kumar Agrawal, the SDM Morena, on the proceedings dated 10/12/2006. Thereupon, the police filed the charge-sheet only against him under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 500 IPC in the JMFC Court Ambah whereupon Criminal Case No. 1036/2010 was registered. Vide order dated 12/7/2010, the learned JMFC had taken the cognizance against all the persons named in the 6 CRR No. 279/2014 complaint exercising the power under Section 190 CrPC. Later, he committed the case to the Sessions Court Morena for trial as the offences under Sections 467 and 468 IPC are triable by a Court of Session in the State of Madhya Pradesh. Thereupon, Sessions Case No. 81/2011 was registered and the same was made over to the court of Additional Sessions Judge Ambah for trial.
(2.3). On 28/1/2014, the learned ASJ heard arguments over the framing of the charges and passed the impugned order on the same day in the order-sheet holding that there is prima facie evidence that the applicants and other accused persons had committed the offences punishable under Sections 120-B, 467, 468 and 471 IPC without mentioning what evidence is available against each of the accused persons and framed the charges. The applicants and the other co- accused persons pleaded not guilty to the charges. Being aggrieved by the framing of the 7 CRR No. 279/2014 charges, the applicants have filed this revision. It be noted that against the impugned order accused Jaipal Singh has filed Criminal Revision No. 347/2014 before this Court, which is being decided at the same time.
3. Learned counsel for the applicants submitted that the Samiti is governed by the Madhya Bhartiya Arya Pratinidhi Shabha Bhopal (for short "the shabha"). Jaipal Singh is the Mantri (Secretary) of the shabha and also a member of the samiti. Dalveer Singh Raghav is the head of the shabha. Vide the order dated 28/11/2006, Dalveer Singh Raghav has reconstituted the steering committee of the samiti replacing the committee appointed earlier vide order dated 22/6/2005, thereby nominating Jiapal Singh by name and the SDM Morena by post on the committee and asked them to hold the elections for the remaining office bearers of the samiti. In compliance with the said order, on 10/12/2006 Jaipal Singh held elections of the remaining office bearers of the samiti in the presence of Babu Singh Tomar, the president of 8 CRR No. 279/2014 general body of the samiti. Thus, on 10/12/2006, the elections were held upon the mandate of the head of the shabha. In order to prove that the applicants are the members of the samiti, the attention of this Court is drawn towards the list of membership of the samiti wherein at Serial Nos. 7 and 12, the name of the applicants namely Smt. Bitti Bai @ Rajabeti and Smt. Rajeshwari Tomar respectively are there. Thus, the applicants are genuine members of the samiti. He submitted that immediate after the elections the same day i.e. 10/12/2006, the election proceedings were drawn with the concurrence of the Election Officer Jaipal Singh, the members of the samiti present and the newly elected office bearers of the samiti and Krishna Das Porwal has been assigned a job to put up the election proceedings for the perusal of the SDM Morena and to get his approval over the elections of the office bearers of the samiti. Thus, Krishna Das Porwa is alone responsible for the fake signature, as alleged by respondent No. 2/complainant, of Shri Vijay Kumar Agrawal, the SDM Morena. That is why the 9 CRR No. 279/2014 police had filed the charge-sheet only against him for his prosecution under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 500 IPC. He criticized the order dated 12/7/2010 passed by the learned JMFC under Section 190 CrPC on the ground that he has not mentioned even in few words in the order on what evidence the cognizance of the offences against the applicants are taken under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B IPC. He also criticized the impugned order of framing charges dated 28/11/2014 in respect of the applicants on the ground that the learned ASJ has not mentioned in the impugned order on what evidence he has framed the charges against the applicants. Thus, both the orders are arbitrary, perverse and contrary to law. Upon the said contentions, he submitted that the applicants have not committed any offence for which they have been charged vide the impugned order. He also submitted that applicants Smt. Rajeshwari Tomar and Smt. Bitti Bai are 70 and 81 years old women respectively. They are facing the trial without committing any offence at such a ripe old age. Upon 10 CRR No. 279/2014 these submissions, he prayed to quash the charges against the applicants as framed and to discharge them under Section 227 CrPC by allowing this revision.
4. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No. 2/complainant submitted that the applicants are not the members of the samiti and the fake list of membership of the samiti has been produced before this Court. He submitted that applicant Smt. Rajeshwari is the wife of Mahendra Singh Tomar who has been elected as Up-Mantri of the samiti and applicant Bitti Bai @ Rajabeti is the wife of Babu Singh Tomar, the president of general body of the samiti. Thus, both the applicants have voted in the elections having entered into criminal conspiracy with the elected office-bearers knowing that they are not the real members of the samiti. Thus, the learned ASJ has rightly framed the charges against them for the offences punishable under Sections 120-B, 467, 468 and 471 IPC.
5. Learned Public Prosecutor supported the arguments raised by learned counsel for respondent 11 CRR No. 279/2014 No. 2.
6. I have considered the rival submissions made at the Bar and perused the entire material available on record.
7. Before adverting to the facts of the present case, it would be pertinent to see what is the legal position with regard to the scope of interference and exercise of jurisdiction under Section 397 of the Cr.P.C. In this context, the following decision of Hon'ble the Supreme Court is worthy of noticing. In Sajjan Kumar Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation, (2010) 9 SCC 368, the Supreme Court had culled out the following principles on the basis of its earlier pronouncements with regard to scope of Sections 227 and 228 Cr.P.C.
(i) While considering the question of framing of the charges under Section 227 Cr.P.C. the Judge has the undoubted power to sift and weigh the evidence for the limited purpose of finding out whether or not a prima facie case against the accused has been made out. The test to determine prima facie case would depend upon the facts of each case.
(ii) Where the materials placed before the 12 CRR No. 279/2014 Court disclose grave suspicion against the accused which has not been properly explained, the Court will be fully justified in framing a charge and proceeding with the trial.
(iii) The Court cannot act merely as a Post Office or a mouthpiece of the prosecution but has to consider the broad probabilities of the case, the total effect of the evidence and the documents produced before the Court, any basic infirmities etc. However, at this stage, there cannot be a roving enquiry into the pros and cons of the matter and weigh the evidence as if he was conducting a trial.
(iv) If on the basis of the material on record, the Court could form an opinion that the accused might have committed offence, it can frame the charge, though for conviction the conclusion is required to be proved beyond reasonable doubt that the accused has committed the offence.
(v) At the time of framing of the charges, the probative value of the material on record cannot be gone into but before framing a charge the Court must apply its judicial mind on the material placed on record and must be satisfied that the commission of offence by the accused was possible.
(vi) At the stage of Sections 227 and 228 13 CRR No. 279/2014 Cr.P.C. the Court is required to evaluate the material and documents on record with a view to find out if the facts emerging therefrom taken at their face value discloses the existence of all the ingredients constituting the alleged offence. For this limited purpose, sift the evidence as it cannot be expected even at that initial stage to accept all that the prosecution states as gospel truth even if it is opposed to common sense or the broad probabilities of the case.
(vii) If two views are possible and one of them gives rise to suspicion only, as distinguished from grave suspicion, the trial Judge will be empowered to discharge the accused and at this stage, he is not to see whether the trial will end in conviction or acquittal.
8. In the light of aforesaid propositions of law, I would proceed to decide this revision.
9. In para 8 of the order dated 4/2/2000 passed by Shri S.R. Chourey, the under Secretary to the Government of Madhya Pradesh, Commerce and Industries Department, in an appeal titled Dayanand Arya Shiksha Prasar Samiti Ambah Vs. Registrar Firms and Societies and others, he has observed that there 14 CRR No. 279/2014 are two lists of members of the samiti and two parallel committee of it. On the basis of said observations, it cannot be said that the applicants are fake members of the samiti. Jaipal Singh has been duly appointed by the shabha, which governs the activities of the samiti, to hold the elections of the office bearers of the samiti as representative of it. Therefore, an inference can also be drawn that the shabha has recognized the applicants and other persons, who participated in the elections, as members of the samiti. The elections of the office-bearers of the samiti held on 10/12/2006 were in accordance with the procedure of the samiti. As per the election proceedings of the said date, Krishna Das Porwal was authorized to put up the proceedings before the SDM Morena for his perusal and to get his approval over the elections of office bearers of the samiti. If the signature of Vijay Kumar Agrawal, the SDM Morena, is faked on the proceedings, then he is solely responsible. As both the applicants are the members of the samiti, therefore, they had right to vote to the candidates of their 15 CRR No. 279/2014 choices. In this background, if they had given votes to their husbands in the elections to elect them as office- bearers of the samiti, it cannot be said that they voted them having entered into conspiracy with them. In that view of the matter, I find that there is no iota of prima facie evidence on record that the applicants had committed any offence with which they have been charged. Thus, the learned ASJ has erred in framing the charges against the applicants.
10. For the foregoing reasons and discussions, I allow this criminal revision and quash the charges framed against the applicants for the offences punishable under Sections 120-B, 467, 468 and 471 IPC. They are discharged under the provisions of Section 227 CrPC. Their bail-bonds stand cancelled.
11. Accordingly, this criminal revision is finally disposed of.
(Rajendra Mahajan)
AKS Judge
ALOK
Digitally signed by ALOK KUMAR
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF
MADHYA PRADESH BENCH
GWALIOR, postalCode=474011,
st=Madhya Pradesh,
KUMAR
2.5.4.20=3ef8745c6370f82dacdeea d96cacf73eb5be4686c0c728c8b32 e39801a8fdf0e, cn=ALOK KUMAR Date: 2017.11.21 12:09:09 +05'30'