Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

(03/10/2019) This revision petition under Section 397/401 Cr.P.C. has been preferred by the petitioner being aggrieved by the order dated 11.04.2017 in S.T. No. 34/2015 passed by 13th Additional Sessions Judge, Bhopal, whereby the learned ASJ has framed the charges against the petitioner for offence punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468 and 471 of IPC.

2. According to case, in compliance of order, passed by learned JMFC Bhopal in private complaint, filed by Smt. Chadrakali Dwivedi/respondent No. 2 against the petitioner, police has registered the FIR. According to complaint, it appears that complainant is wife of the petitioner and petitioner has deserted her for more than 10 years. Complainant has five children, one is son and 4 are daughters. Since after marriage, the petitioner/accused used to beat her. Subsequently, the complainant has filed a proceeding for getting maintenance from the petitioner and in this proceeding, to prove the income of the respondent No. 2, the petitioner has filed a license of LIC agent and bank statement of the complainant. According to complainant, 10 years ago, on saying of the petitioner, complainant has given examination of LIC agent and thereafter petitioner has also taken her signature in form which are drafted in English. Complainant had never known that she is LIC agent, she came to know about the same when the petitioner has produced the document in Court proceedings. The petitioner gets commission of LIC and has also given income tax. For more then 10 years, commission in the name of her is being collected by the petitioner and her forged signature is being also marked by him in LIC policies. Moreover, petitioner is being withdrawn amount of commission from ATM belongs to her. She is under suspicious that the petitioner would have withdrawn the money by making her forged signature in withdrawal form before getting ATM card. The police authority has refused to take any action against petitioner, thus, the complainant has preferred private complaint before the Court.

3. After registering the FIR, police has inquired the matter and seized some documents from the Manager of LIC, Bhopal. Police has also seized two cheque from Bank Manager Axis Bank, branch MP Nagar, Bhopal. Some other documents have also been seized by the police to verify the signature. Police has also recorded the statements of complainant and other witnesses.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that on reading of FIR, no offence is made against the petitioner. In the present case, the complainant appeared in the examination of LIC agent in the year 2001 and passed it successfully. She was well aware with the fact and working as LIC agent. She has filed the complaint in the year 2013 which makes it clear that petitioner has not committed any offence. To constitute offence under Section 420 of IPC, intention to cheat is very necessary, but herein there is no ingredient is found. It was never pleaded by the complainant that she is living separately with the petitioner, per-contra, petitioner is still maintaining her, thus, there is no question of dishonest in the part of petitioner. The CCTV footage or statements of the Bank Officers and LIC have not been taken by the police while filing final report under Section 173 of Cr.P.C. which are much relevant to this case. The respondent /complainant No.1 herself stated that she appeared in the examination of LIC and passed successfully, thus, pleading of complainant regarding unawareness about being her LIC agent is not acceptable. Due to dismissal of her application for seeking maintenance, complainant has filed this false complaint against the petitioner. With the aforesaid submissions, he prays for allowing this petition.

5. On the other hand, learned G.A. as well as learned counsel for the respondent No.2 oppose the prayer and submits that there is sufficient material is available on the record for framing the charges for the aforesaid offences. The petitioner has deceived the complainant by receiving amount from LIC in the name of complainant as a LIC agent. He has also manipulated the documents and committed the offence of forgery. At this stage, this revision petition may not be allowed, petitioner may raise all the ground before the trial Court at appropriate stage of trial.

20. After careful reading of aforesaid provision and principle, I revert back to the facts of the case to decide the same.

21. On perusal of documents annexed with the case, it seems that the petitioner and respondent No. 2 are husband and wife. The dispute arose when in maintenance proceeding, the petitioner has filed the license of the respondent No. 2 with regard to LIC to prove her income. The complainant/respondent No. 2 alleged that the petitioner has made several policies by making her forged signature upon it and he has received commission of her name from LIC. She has also expressed her suspicious that the petitioner has withdrawn the money by making her forged signature in withdrawal form. Police has also seized some documents for handwriting verification of the petitioner and same were sent to handwriting expert. The report of handwriting expert is not annexed with the case. Police has also recorded the statements of complainant as well as other witnesses. Complainant/respondent No. 2 has stated that she has appeared in the examination of LIC agent on saying of petitioner and petitioner has taken her signature in form. Petitioner had never disclosed that he is going to make her LIC agent, she has also stated about her matrimonial dispute. She stated that, she came to know about the said fact when petitioner has submitted her license in maintenance proceeding to prove her income. Sunita Dwivedi, daughter of the complainant has also supported her version. Statements of some policy holder have also been recorded, who have supported the fact that the petitioner has made their policy and they had not concerned with complainant/respondent No.2. On seized policies, signature of respondent No. 2 is appeared and same are under verification as the report of handwriting expert is not annexed in the record.