Madhya Pradesh High Court
Rajkumar Paliwal vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 29 August, 2022
Author: Sunita Yadav
Bench: Sunita Yadav
01
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE SUNITA YADAV
ON THE 29th OF AUGUST, 2022
CRIMINAL REVISION No. 4962 of 2019
Between:-
RAJKUMAR PALIWAL S/O SHRI
MITTHULAL PALIWAL, AGED ABOUT 70
YEARS, OCCUPATION: BUSINESS, R/O
SIRONJ, DISTRICT VIDISHA (MADHYA
PRADESH)
......APPLICANT
(BY SHRI PRASHANT SHARMA-
ADVOCATE)
AND
1. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
INCHARGE POLICE STATION SIRONJ,
DISTRICT VIDISHA (MADHYA
PRADESH)
2. SANJEEV PALIWAL S/O MITTHULAL,
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, R/O CHETAK
COMPLEX ZONE-II, BHOPAL; AT
PRESENT R/O C/21, PROFESSOR
COLONY, BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. PADAMSHREE AGRAWAL- PANEL
LAWYER)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
02
This revision coming on for hearing this day, the court passed the
following:
ORDER
The present criminal revision has been filed for quashing the order dated 20.08.2019 passed by Learned First Additional Sessions Judge, Sironj, District Vidisha (M.P.), whereby the charges for the offence punishable u/Ss.420, 465, 467, 468 & 471 of IPC have been framed against the petitioner.
The case in brief to decide this petition are that a charge- sheet u/S.420, 465, 467, 468 and 471 of IPC was filed against the petitioner alleging that by preparing forged seal of the concerned authority/Municipal Council, the petitioner fabricated the mutation order in respect to the house owned by father of the petitioner/accused and complainant. After conclusion of the investigation, charge-sheet under above sections have been filed before the learned Court below. The learned court below framed the charges u/Ss.420, 465, 467, 468, 471 of IPC and dismissed the application filed by the petitioner u/S.227 of Cr.P.C. by impugned order.
03
Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the impugned order is illegal, contrary and against the settled principles of law, therefore, deserves to be set aside. It is further argued that there is no material to show that any forgery has been committed by the petitioner, in fact, when the documents which are forming part of challan are seen, then it will be clear that the father of the petitioner has filed an application in relation to getting the name of the petitioner mutated over shop no.136. The application filed by the father of petitioner long back. Upon that application, no action was taken and when from the Almirah of father, the petitioner found the said application in photocopy form, he submitted that application for mutation before the authority. Consequently, the impugned order be set aside and the present petitioner/accused be discharged from the charges framed against him.
On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent/State argued that there are sufficient material available on record for framing of charges against the petitioner/accused. It is further argued that at this stage of trial, the offence of the 04 petitioner/accused cannot be seen. It is further argued that the nature of this case is not of civil nature because there are specific charges against the petitioner for the forgery and cheating, therefore, prays for dismissal of present petition.
Heard the learned counsel for the rival parties and perused the record.
On perusal of records, it reveals that the complainant/respondent No.2 filed a written complaint against the petitioner/accused alleging that the house in dispute was the property of the father of complainant, however, the accused by preparing forged documents, seals of Municipal Council got the mutation order in his favour. The record also reveals that the said application allegedly filed by Mitthulal was neither received in dispatch register nor there is signature of the concerned receiving clerk who allegedly received the application. It is also apparent that the Municipal Council has not in possession of original application allegedly filed by Mitthulal. Thus, prima-facie there are material available on record for framing of the charges against 05 the petitioner.
The Supreme Court in the case of Soma Chakravarty Vs. State (Th. CBI), [2007 AIR SCW 3683] has held as under:-
"20...... "It may be mentioned that the settled legal position, as mentioned in the above decisions, is that if on the basis of 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. At the time of framing of the charges the probative value of the material on record cannot be gone into, and the material brought on record by the prosecution has to be accepted as true at that stage."
Similarly, the Apex Court in the case of State of Rajasthan vs. Fatehkaran Mehdu, [(2017) 3 SCC 198] has observed that at the stage of framing of a charge, the court is concerned not with proof of allegation, rather it has to focus on material and form an opinion whether there is strong suspicion that accused has committed an offence, which if put to trial, could prove his guilt. Framing of charge is not a stage, at which stage final test of guilt is to be applied.
The Supreme Court in the case of State of Bihar vs. Ramesh Singh, [AIR 1977 SC 2018] has held that "whereas 06 strong suspicion may not take the place of the proof at the trial stage, yet it may be sufficient for the satisfaction of the Trial Judge in order to frame a charge against the accused."
The Supreme Court in the case of Union of India vs. Prafulla Kumar Samal, [AIR 1979 SC 366] has held as under:-
"(1) That the Judge while considering the question of framing the charges under Section 227 of the Code 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. (2) Where the materials placed before the 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."
In view of above discussion, this Court is of the considered opinion that there is a sufficient material available on record against the petitioner so as to frame charges for the offence punishable under Sections 420, 465, 467, 468 and 471 of IPC.
Consequently, present criminal revisions sans merit and are hereby dismissed.
(SUNITA YADAV) JUDGE vpn VIPIN KUMAR AGRAHARI 2022.09.02 VALSALA VASUDEVAN 2018.10.26 15:14:29 -07'00' 14:37:49 +05'30'