Madhya Pradesh High Court
Ashok Sharma vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 6 December, 2021
Author: Gurpal Singh Ahluwalia
Bench: Gurpal Singh Ahluwalia
1
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Criminal Revision No.3068/2021
Ashok Sharma Vs. State of M.P.
Gwalior, Dated:06-12-2021
Shri Virendra Pal Singh, Advocate for applicant.
Shri A.K. Nirankari, Public Prosecutor for respondent/State.
This Criminal Revision under Sections 397, 401 of Cr.P.C. has been filed against the order dated 27/8/2021 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Gwalior in ST No.272/2021, by which charges under Sections 420, 467, 468 and 471 of IPC have been framed.
2. The prosecution case in short is that the applicant had preferred M.Cr.C. No.9340/2015 before this Court alongwith copy of the agreement to sell. The said application was disposed of by this Court vide order dated 18/12/2015 with a direction to the applicant to submit a proper complaint to the Police Station Thatipur, District Gwalior and in case if such a complaint is submitted, then the SHO shall take appropriate action in accordance with law, in the light of the judgment passed by the Supreme Court in the case of Lalita Kumari Vs. Government of U.P. and others reported in (2014) 2 SCC 1. It is submitted that during the course of enquiry the police came to a conclusion that the copy of the agreement to sell, filed by the applicant before this Court in M.Cr.C. No.9340/2015, was a manipulated document because in the original agreement to sell, the total consideration amount as well as remaining outstanding amount 2 THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Criminal Revision No.3068/2021 Ashok Sharma Vs. State of M.P. were not mentioned, but in the agreement to sell, which was filed before this Court, amounts were filled by hand. It is submitted by the counsel for the applicant that the Investigating Officer has not investigated the matter from the point of view, as to whether the applicant had filed the manipulated and forged agreement to sell before this Court or the agreement to sell was manipulated by somebody else during pendency of M.Cr.C. No.9340/2015. It is further submitted that the applicant has obtained the report of the handwriting expert, according to which, it is clear that the handwritten entries in the document are not in the handwriting of the applicant and, therefore, it is incorrect to say that the applicant had filed the manipulated or forged documents before this Court.
3. Considered the submissions made by the counsel for the applicant.
4. The arguments raised by the applicant are far-feteched. In M.Cr.C. No.9340/2015 notices were never issued. In the M.Cr.C. No.9340/2015, which was filed by the applicant, it was alleged that one Awadh Bihari agreed to sell plots No.150, 151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156 and 157 situated in New Ashok Colony, Cremation Ground Road, Morar, District Gwalior, but the said land was not belonging to Awadh Bihari and when the applicant pointed out as to why he executed a forged agreement to sell, then he was threatened and on 3 THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Criminal Revision No.3068/2021 Ashok Sharma Vs. State of M.P. these allegations, the applicant had prayed that the police should take action against Awadh Bihari. From the order-sheets of M.Cr.C. No.9340/2015 which are available on High Court website, it is clear that on two occasions, i.e. 16/9/2015 and 29/10/2015, the case was adjourned at the request of counsel for the applicant and it was finally disposed of on the third date, i.e.18/12/2015. Unless and until the person against whom complaints were made by the applicant was aware of filing of application by the applicant under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., nobody had any interest and occasion to manipulate any document. Further, Awadh Bihari was not impleaded as respondent in M.Cr.C. No.9340/2015.
5. So far as the argument of the counsel for the applicant that there was no necessity for the applicant to enter any amount in the blank spaces is concerned, the same cannot be accepted. By interpolating the agreement to sell, the applicant must have tried to project that Awadh Bihari has executed an agreement to sell in respect of a land which does not belong to him for a huge consideration amount. Furthermore, the applicant is a Builder by profession and, therefore, it cannot be said that the applicant had entered into an agreement to sell with blank spaces unknowingly.
6. So far as the question regarding the report of the handwriting expert is concerned, it is not the case of the prosecution that the 4 THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Criminal Revision No.3068/2021 Ashok Sharma Vs. State of M.P. applicant himself forged the document and filed the same in the Court. While filing the document, it is the duty of the litigant to ensure that the document is not manipulated. If the applicant had got the entries written in the document by taking services of somebody else and thereafter had filed the said document with full knowledge that it is a manipulated and forged document, then it cannot be said that merely because the handwritten entries are not in the handwriting of the applicant, therefore, he is an innocent person.
7. So far as the contention that in an application for grant of anticipatory bail the applicant had filed the correct agreement to sell without there being any manipulated entries in the document and that clearly indicates that the applicant was not in possession of the manipulated document is concerned, it is the case of the prosecution that the photocopy of the agreement to sell, which was filed by the applicant before the Court was a manipulated one. A person can prepare lot of photocopies of a single document, therefore, merely because the applicant had filed a copy of the correct agreement to sell alongwith his application for grant of anticipatory bail, it cannot be said that the applicant by no stretch of imagination can file a forged document in an application filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. Furthermore, so far as the documents which have been filed by the applicant in support of his defence are concerned, the same are matter 5 THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Criminal Revision No.3068/2021 Ashok Sharma Vs. State of M.P. of defence and in the light of the judgment passed by the Supreme Court in the case of State of Orissa v. Debendra Nath Pandhi reported in (2005) 1 SCC 568, it is well established principle of law that an accused cannot rely on any document at the stage of framing of charge and he has to prove his defence by leading evidence at the appropriate stage.
8. It is further submitted by the counsel for the applicant that since the prosecution has failed to prove that the document was not manipulated while it was in custodia legis, therefore, the bar as contained under Section 195 of Cr.P.C. would be applicable and, thus, the FIR is not maintainable.
9. Considered the submissions made by the counsel for the applicant.
10. It is not the case of the prosecution that the applicant had forged the document while it was in custodia legis. The case of the prosecution is that the applicant had filed a manipulated and forged document before this Court. If the document was already forged before filing in the Court, then it is well established principle of law that the bar as contained under Section 195 of Cr.P.C. would not be applicable and the FIR is maintainable. The Supreme Court in the case of Iqbal Singh Marwah and another Vs. Meenakshi Marwah 6 THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Criminal Revision No.3068/2021 Ashok Sharma Vs. State of M.P. and another reported in (2005) 4 SCC 370 has held as under:-
"33. In view of the discussion made above, we are of the opinion that Sachida Nand Singh has been correctly decided and the view taken therein is the correct view. Section 195 (1) (b) (ii) CrPC would be attracted only when the offences enumerated in the said provision have been committed with respect to a document after it has been produced or given in evidence in a proceeding in any court i.e. during the time when the document was in custodia legis."
11. Furthermore, the bail application of the applicant was dismissed by a detailed order dated 24/3/2021 passed in M.Cr.C. No.16169/2021 as well as order dated 5/5/2021 passed in M.Cr.C. No.21913/2021 and the SLP filed by the applicant has also been dismissed by the Supreme Court by order dated 6/9/2021 passed in SLP (Cri.) No.4079/2021. It is well established principle of law that at the stage of framing of charge, a roving enquiry and meticulous appreciation of evidence is not permissible and even a grave suspicion that the accused might have committed an offence is sufficient to frame charges warranting his trial.
12. Accordingly, the revision fails and is hereby dismissed. However, by way of abundant caution, it is observed that the observations in this order have been made in the light of the limited 7 THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Criminal Revision No.3068/2021 Ashok Sharma Vs. State of M.P. scope of interference and the Trial Court shall decide the trial without getting influenced or prejudiced by any of the observation made in this order.
(G.S. Ahluwalia) Judge Arun* ARUN KUMAR MISHRA 2021.12.08 10:59:29 +05'30'