Madhya Pradesh High Court
Rajesh Kumar Trivedi vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 27 January, 2020
Author: Jagdish Prasad Gupta
Bench: Jagdish Prasad Gupta
1
M.Cr.C. No.28737/2019
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, PRINCIPAL
SEAT AT JABALPUR
(SINGLE BENCH : HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE J.P.GUPTA)
M.Cr.C. No. 28737/2019
Rajesh Kumar Trivedi
Vs.
State of M.P.
Shri Anil Khare, learned Senior Advocate with Ms. Tanvi
Khare, Advocate for the applicant.
Ms. M.P.S. Chuckal, learned Government Advocate for the
respondent/State.
Whether approved for reporting : (Yes / No).
ORDER
(27.01.2020) This petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. has been preferred for quashing the order dated 17.5.2019 by which charges under Sections 420 read with Section 34, 466, 467, 468, 471, 120-B and 201 of IPC had been framed in S.T. No. 263/2016 by IIIst Addl. Sessions Judge, Shahdol, District Shahdol.
2. Facts giving rise to this petition are that in Claim Case No. 51/2011 pending before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Shahdol, co-accused Smt. Geeta Sahu, who was the owner of the 2 M.Cr.C. No.28737/2019 Truck involved in the vehicular accident produced a temporary permit and a Fitness Certificate of the Truck concerned. In her evidence, claiming to have obtained from the Regional Transport Office, Shahdol. The Insurance Company of the claim case challenged the genuineness of the documents and in support of the plea, examined B.B. Laxminarayan Rao, Asstt. Grade III, employee of the Permit Section of the RTO Shahdol, and the applicant the then RTO, Shahdol and they testified before the Tribunal that the original file of the concerned Truck is not available and the aforesaid documents do not bear their signature and they are forged documents and the Claims Tribunal to ascertain the genuineness of the documents, directed the Superintendent of Police, Shahdol to depute police officer for making inquiry into the matter and in case the documents are found forged and fabricated then action be taken against the guilty. In pursuance to the aforesaid direction, the S.P., Shahdol directed Deputy Superintendent of Police, Shahdol to inquire into the matter by letter dated 12.4.2012 and submit the report.
3. Thereupon, the DSP probed into the matter and submitted his report and according to the report Smt. Geeta Sahu, Truck owner got the aforesaid documents fabricated with the help of present applicant and Vishnu Kant Verma and Shukhinandan Kol, employees of the RTO and one RTO agent Neeraj and the documents were prepared with the objective to save Smt. Geeta Sahu from liability to pay compensation to the claimant of the claim case by shifting her burden of payment of compensation to the Insurance Company of the case and in order to hide the misdead of fabrication of the documents, the original file of the Truck was got disappeared by them from the 3 M.Cr.C. No.28737/2019 RTO Office, Shahdol and on the basis of the aforesaid report, police Kotwali Shahdol, Crime No. 884/12 Under Sections 420, 466, 467, 468, 471, 120-B and 201 of IPC was registered and after investigation, charge sheet has been filed and by the impugned order, learned trial Court has framed the aforesaid charges against the applicant, which are challenged here.
4. It is submitted that there is no iota of evidence to prosecute the applicant for the commission of the aforesaid offences. The applicant categorically stated before the Claims Tribunal that the concerned documents do not bear his signature and there is nothing on record to prove or establish the fact that the forged documents bear his signature or have been prepared with the connivance of him. Truck owner Geeta Sahu submitted the documents before the Claims Tribunal, therefore, she is responsible for making or producing the forged documents. If somebody prepared forged documents in the name of the applicant and he himself has disclosed the fact that the documents are not original and not having his signature and there is no other evidence to prove that he is lying and the signature is actually of him, no such presumption can be drawn that he is author of the documents concerned or involved in preparing the documents in absence of any material with regard to connivance with the Truck owner.
5. In the case there is no evidence that the truck owner ever applied for permit and certificate and no documents or files are available with regard to issuing any permit or fitness certificate in favour of the Truck owner concerned. The applicant cannot be held liable if Truck owner prepared forged documents showing issued from the office of the RTO Shahdol.
4 M.Cr.C. No.28737/2019The applicant being RTO of the Shahdol cannot be prosecuted merely because the documents were prepared showing to be issued by the RTO Shahdol, if such type of inference is drawn and the officers are prosecuted, it would be mockery of the justice. Similarly after retirement of the applicant, it is found that some files are missing from the record and not produced before the Claims Court on the summon. No adverse inference can be drawn against the applicant that the applicant was involved in the preparation of forged documents. On the basis of mere surmises and conjuncture, a person cannot be prosecuted, there must be some prima facie material for the satisfaction of the court to prosecute the person for committing the offence. In the present case, even no prudent person can be arrived at the conclusion considering the facts and circumstances of the case that the applicant was involved in preparation of forged documents to support the Truck owner in any claim case, with a view to shift the burden to the Truck owner to the Insurance Company, therefore, in this case there is no material to frame the charges and learned trial Court without considering the material available on record, in mechanical way framed the charges hence the impugned order deserves to be set aside.
6. Learned counsel has also submitted that earlier the applicant challenged the FIR under Section 482 of CrP.C., in M.Cr.C. No. 17158/2014 before this court which was dismissed by order dated 12.1.2016 with the liberty that the applicant may raise all the questions before the trial Court, at the time of framing of the charges and before the trial Court, questions were raised but the trial Court without considering the aforesaid contentions passed the impugned order, which is not 5 M.Cr.C. No.28737/2019 sustainable. Therefore, this petition has been filed for setting aside the impugned order.
7. On behalf of the Government Advocate, it is fairly admitted that prima facie, there is no material in the charge sheet to prosecute the applicant, this court also called for the concerned investigation officer Rajesh Chandra Mishra, T.I. Police Station Pali, District Umariya, and G.S,. Maravi, Inspector, P.T.S., Umariya to show the matter in the charge sheet, on the basis of which against the applicant, charge has been filed. Both the officers failed to show any material against the applicant and admitted that the higher officer after inquiry recorded the FIR, showing the applicant as accused. On the basis of same they have arrayed the applicant as accused in the charge sheet.
8. Having gone through the charge sheet, in view of this court, there is no material in the charge sheet to prima facie infer that the alleged forged documents were prepared and filed before the Claims Tribunal in connivance of the applicant and it appears that in the name of the applicant, fake documents have been prepared and the applicant has been arrayed in this case because documents concerned show that they were issued from the office of the RTO, Shahdol at the time where the applicant was posted as RTO. The applicant has no role in preparation of the documents. He cannot be held liable for preparation of such documents for helping co-accused Smt. Geeta Sahu. Hence it is a clear cut case of non-application of mind by the investigation officer and the material and charge sheet, do not disclose commission of any offence by the applicant. It is also found that the learned trial Court has not applied its mind before framing 6 M.Cr.C. No.28737/2019 of the charge and in mechanical way without considering the evidence and its relevancy against the applicant arrived at the conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused and passed the impugned order.
9. At the stage of framing of charge, undoubtedly, the appreciation of evidence is not permissible, but it is the duty of the court to see whether on the basis of the material on record it could be said that the accused might have committed offence. It need no trial and the conclusion that the material produced warrant conviction, the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of P. Vijayan vs. State of Kerala and Anr. AIR 2010 SC 663 and Dilawar Babu Kurane vs. State of Maharashtra AIR 2002 SC 564 have held that the judge is not a mere Post Office to frame charge at the behest of the prosecution, but has to exercise his judicial mind to facts of the case and in order to determine whether a case for trial has been made out by prosecution. In the present case, the learned trial Court has failed to follow the aforesaid guidelines.
10. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the petition deserves to be allowed. Hence it is allowed and the impugned order dated 17.5.2019 is set aside. Therefore, its concern to present applicant is set aside.
(J.P. GUPTA) JUDGE VKV/-
Digitally signed by VINAY KUMAR VERMA Date: 2020.01.27 03:22:21 -08'00'