Madhya Pradesh High Court
Rajendra @ Raju Paliwal And Anr. vs State Of Madhya Pradesh on 8 May, 2007
Equivalent citations: 2007(3)MPHT203
Author: U.C. Maheshwari
Bench: U.C. Maheshwari
ORDER U.C. Maheshwari, J.
1. This petition is preferred at the instance of the applicants/accused, under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code being aggrieved by the order dated 8-11-06 passed by the Addl. Sessions Judge, Sohagpur in Criminal Revision No. 85/06 whereby the order dated 24-6-2006 passed by JMFC, Sohagpur in Criminal Case No. 378/05 framing the charges for the offence under Sections 409, 420, 468, 471 read with Section 120B of the IPC has been affirmed in respect of the present applicants.
2. The facts giving rise to this petition in short are that after receiving a report in writing at Police Station, Sohagpur from the Manager, Zila Sahkari Kendriya Bank Maryadit, Hoshangabad in respect of committing an offence of misappropriation of Rs. 14 lacs in the Bank by their Branch Manager Devi Singh and Cashier Sanjay Singh, an offence under Section 409 of the IPC was registered against them as Crime No. 378/05 at such Police Station. During investigation, on revealing that the present applicants are also involved in the criminal conspiracy for committing the alleged misappropriation of money and also for fabricating forged documents for committing such act, and that such documents were furnished or kept in the record with intention to commit fraud and misappropriation of the Bank money, then after investigation, the present applicants along with other accused were also charge-sheeted for the offence punishable under Sections 409, 420, 468, 471 read with Section 120B of the IPC. After assessing the police report filed under Section 173 of the Cr.PC and the papers submitted along with it, the impugned charges were framed against the concerned accused including the present applicants. Against framing of such charges, the applicants preferred a revision before the Subordinate Sessions Judge. On consideration, such revision was dismissed by holding that there is prima facie circumstance for framing the charges against the applicants. Thus, at the stage of framing the charges, these applicants could not be discharged. The same is under challenge in this petition.
3. Shri P.C. Paliwal, learned Counsel for the applicants while making his submission said that in view of the papers of the charge-sheet, any of the alleged offence is not made out against any of these applicants even for framing the charges. In support of his arguments, he referred the FIR and the interrogatory statements of the various witnesses recorded by the police. He also said that at the initial stage, the offence was registered under Section 409 of the IPC against the concerned Branch Manager Devi Singh and Cashier Sanjay Singh but subsequent to it, they have been implicated by recording the interrogatory statements of some witnesses. The same are also not sufficient for framing the aforesaid charges. So far maintainability of this petition is concerned, he said that if the trial is held against these applicants in the absence of any prima facie evidence, then they have to face the mental agony and unnecessary harassment by which their liberty will be affected. Under such circumstances, to do justice with them, by allowing this petition, they should be discharged from the aforesaid charges. With these submissions, he said that even after dismissal of the revision by the Sessions Court, under the present circumstances by invoking the inherent powers of the High Court provided under Section 482 of the Cr.PC, this Court by entertaining this petition may discharge the applicants.
4. In contra, with the assistance of the case-diary, Shri P. Choubey, learned Govt. Advocate submitted that in view of the prima facie evidence available against these applicants, the order of the Trial Court in respect of framing the charges against them cannot be interfered at this stage and prayed for dismissal of this petition. He also said that under the garb of Section 482 of the Cr.PC, by entertaining this revision, the applicants could not be permitted to file the second revision contrary to the provision of Section 399(3) of the Cr.PC.
5. Having heard the learned Counsels, I have carefully gone through Sub-section (3) of Section 399 of the Cr.PC in which only one Criminal Revision is provided and as per such provision if such revision has been dismissed by the Revisional Court then, at the instance of the same applicant of such revision, the second revision cannot be entertained by this Court. When specific provision is available in the Criminal Procedure Code for revision, then under the garb of Section 482 of the Cr.PC, by invoking the inherent powers of this Court, the applicants cannot be permitted to file the second revision. It is also settled position of the law that the inherent powers of this Court enumerated under Section 482 of the Cr.PC cannot be invoked in routine manner. It can be invoked only in rare cases in which the possibility of happening injustice with the concerned party is apparent, but by entertaining this revision, the applicants could not be permitted to file the second revision. Such question was answered by the Apex Court in the matter of Dharampal and Ors. v. Smt. Ramshri and Ors. , in which it was held as under:
4...It is now well settled that the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code cannot be utilized for exercising powers which are expressly barred by the Code. Hence, the High Court had clearly erred in entertaining the second revision at the instance of 1st respondent. On this short ground itself, the impugned order of the High Court can be set aside.
6. Besides the above, even after perusing the papers of the charge-sheet submitted on behalf of the applicants on record and specially in view of the interrogatory statements of the witnesses, namely, Pradeep Singh, Prakash Dubey, Badami Lal, Beni Prasad, Ram Kumar, Dhruv Kumar Meena, Mohan, Vijay Rathore, Naval Kishore Sahu, Mohan Tiwari and Sanjay Dewan and some others, I am of the view that prima facie evidence is available against these applicants for framing such charges. Although, at this stage, the Court has not to consider the probability of conviction or acquittal of the applicants but the Court has to assess the prima facie circumstances for framing the charges in view of the papers submitted with the police report filed under Section 173 of the Cr.PC. My aforesaid view is based on a decision of the Apex Court in the matter of State of A.P. v. Golconda Linga Swamy and Anr. , in which it was held as under:
10...At the time of framing the charge it can be decided whether prima facie case has been made out showing commission of an offence and involvement of the charged persons. At that stage also evidence cannot be gone into meticulously. It is immaterial whether the case is based on direct or circumstantial evidence. Charge can be framed, if there are materials showing possibility about the commission of the crime as against certainty....
7. Under the aforesaid premises, without expressing any opinion on the factual matrix, in the lack of any merit in this petition, I am not inclined to admit the same at the stage of motion hearing. Resultantly, this petition is dismissed at the stage of motion hearing. However, the Trial Court is directed to hold the trial without being influenced by any direction or observations made in this order.
8. The petition is dismissed as indicated above.