Madhya Pradesh High Court
Smt. Sunita Mishra vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 4 January, 2013
(1)
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : AT JABALPUR
Cr.Revision No. 1903/2012
Smt. Sunita Mishra
Vs.
State of M.P.
As Per : G.S.Solanki, J
Shri Rajesh Maindiretta, Advocate for the applicant.
Shri P.K.Chourasia, PL for the State.
Order reserved on : 20.11.2012
Order Passed on : 4.1.2013
ORDER
1. The applicant has filed this revision under Section 397 of the Cr.P.C. being aggrieved by order dated 13.8.2012 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Special Court No. 2 (MPEB) Bhopal in S.T. No. 691/2011 whereby the charges under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 of the IPC have been framed against the applicant.
2. The facts, in short, giving rise to this petition are that the applicant is owner in possession of plot No. 353, Rohit Grih Nirman Shakari Samiti Maryadit, Rohit Nagar, Phase-I, Shahpura, Bhopal. A complaint was made by one Shri Jinendra Kumar Jain with the allegation that Amarnath Mishra/husband of applicant has fraudulently transferred aforesaid Plot No. 353 in favour of the applicant.
3. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Special Court framed the charges under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 of the IPC against the applicant, hence this petition.
4. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the allotment was made by the erstwhile President. Thus, no prima facie case is made out against the applicant. The learned Additional Sessions Judge committed illegality in framing the charges under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 of the IPC against the (2) applicant, therefore, the impugned order be set aside and applicant be discharged from the aforesaid charges.
5. Learned counsel for the State has supported the impugned order and submitted that co-accused Amarnath Mishra is husband of the applicant. Initially Plot No. 353 was alloted to complainant Jinendra Kumar Jain. The name of the applicant was added against name of another member Vimla Datta on Sr. No. 121 and thereafter applicant and her husband committed fraud, purchased the forged stamp and executed sale deed of Plot No. 353 in the name of the applicant. Thus, there is strong prima facie case against the applicant. The trial Court has rightly framed the charges against the applicant, this revision is liable to be dismissed.
6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and gone through the case diary. There is an allegation of cheating against the applicant and her husband. The name of the applicant was entered against another member Vimla Datta, which could not be possible without consent of the applicant. Witness Vimla Datta specifically stated that she had not surrendered her plot. She had not sworn affidavit in favour of applicant. Thereafter, sale deed was executed in favour of the applicant and applicant is the beneficiary, thus, there is strong prima facie case against the applicant and her husband. All these facts require a trial. It is well established principle of law that even on the basis of strong suspicion, the charges can be framed by the trial Court.
7. Thus, in my opinion, the trial Court has not committed any illegality in framing the charges under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 of the IPC against the applicant.
8. Consequently, the revision, being devoid of merits, is hereby dismissed.
(G.S.Solanki) Judge PB