Rajkumar Jain v. State Of Chhattisgarh

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR Cr.M.P No.628 of 2016 Rajkumar Jain S/o Mangal Chain Jain Aged About 59 Years R/o - Gandhi Chowk, Near Poonam Hotel Juna Bilaspur P.S. City Kotwali, Distt. - Bilaspur, Civil & Revenue - Distt. Bilaspur Chhattisgarh ---- Petitioner

Versus

State Of Chhattisgarh Through - Station House Officer, P.S. Bilaspur Chhattisgarh Civil & Revnue Distt. - Bilaspur Chhattisgarh ------Respondent For Petitioner:

Shri Rajesh Roshan Singh, Advocate.

For Respondent/State:

Shri Rajendra Tripathi, Panel Lawyer..

Single Bench:

Hon'ble Shri P. Sam Koshy, J Order On Board 29.8.2016 1.

By way of the present Petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C, the Petitioner has sought for quashment of the charges framed against him in Criminal Case No.568/2012 pending before the JMFC, Bilaspur dated 21.1.2015. Vide the said order, offence under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468 and 471/34 IPC have been framed against the Petitioner.

2.

Against the said framing of charge, the Petitioner had also preferred a Revision Petition before the 5th Additional Sessions Judge, Bilaspur which was registered as Criminal Revision No.88/2015 which too stood rejected on 22.2.2016 leading to the filing of the present Petition. 3.

Learned Counsel for the Petitioner assailing the two orders submits that the two Courts below have failed to appreciate the fact that on prima facie perusal of the charge sheet and the documents enclosed along with the charge sheet, no offence whatsoever, is made out against the present

Petitioner while the Court below has, in a mechanical manner, proceeded against the Petitioner only on the basis of the false charges having been made on the Petitioner/accused person.

4.

Learned Counsel for the Petitioner further submits that the Court below has failed to appreciate the fact that the only allegation against the present Petitioner is that the Petitioner being a victim of a fraudulent sale deed that took place on 2.6.2004 wherein the disputed property has been sold by one Sheetal Kumar Gwala to the purchaser Krishna Kumar Kashyap where the Petitioner stood as witness to the sale deed.

He further submits that in fact the signature in the sale deed is not a signature of the present Petitioner which appears to be a tampered document whereby his signature was projected to be his signature that the investigating agency and for that matter, the Court below also ought to have first perused from the records as to whether there was any handwriting expert's opinion taken by the investigating agency to determine whether the signature so affixed in the sale deed was that of the Petitioner or not. According to him, in the absence of the expert's opinion by the investigating agency, the case against the Petitioner could not have been made out and thus the framing of charge was bad in law and prayed for quashment of the same.

5.

Learned State Counsel opposes the Petition on the ground that prima facie there is sufficient material available on record to show that the Petitioner has some role in the alleged transaction of the registration of the sale deed on 2.6.2004 in as much as the Petitioner has been shown as the witness to the said sale deed. According to the State Counsel, if the prosecution case is to be believed, the Petitioner knowing fully well the fact that the person who had projected himself as Sheetal Kumar Gwala, who is the seller in the said sale

deed was an impersonated person appeared and stood as a witness to the said fraudulent transaction. Thus, prima facie case is made out against the Petitioner and therefore, no case is made out for quashment of the framing of charge and prayed for rejection of the same.

6.

Having considered the rival contentions of either side and on perusal of the record, what is an admitted position is that the case of the prosecution at the first instance is that there was a fraudulent transaction that took place on 2.6.2004 i.e. the sale deed which was executed between the alleged seller Sheetal Kumar Gwala and the purchaser Krishna Kumar Dewangan. Another admitted position as per the prosecution is that the said sale deed was in fact in the name of the original Sheetal Gwala who was an impersonated person and which was also known to the purchaser Krishna Kumar Dewangan. The present Petitioner who was the witness to the said sale deed and his signature is reflected as a witness to the sale deed.

With these available records and admitted facts, it appears that prima facie the prosecution has been able to show some material available on record for framing of charge against the present Petitioner. The Court below at the time of framing charge, has only to see whether the prosecution has been able to make out a prima facie case against the accused person and also prima facie the Petitioner's role is similar to that of the other accused person in the alleged transaction. As far as the Petitioner is concerned, it is his signatures in the sale deed as witness to the alleged fraudulent sale transaction which is prima facie mentioned against him.

7.

So far as the quashment of the framing of charge and interference of the High Court in exercise of its powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C is concerned, it has been held in the recent past is the fact that the Court at the

time of framing of charge has to only see whether there is some material available in the charge sheet which either prima facie shows the involvement of the accused persons in the transaction or even sets a strong suspicion which is good enough for the Court below to frame charge. 9.

The Supreme Court in (2014) 10 SCC 616 (N. Soundaram Vs. P.K. Pounraj and Another) in paragraph 13 has categorically held that:- "13. It is well settled by this Court in a catena of cases that the power under Section 482 Cr.P.C has to be exercised sparingly and cautiously to prevent the abuse of process of any court and to secure the ends of justice. The inherent power should not be exercised to stifle a legitimate prosecution. The High Court should refrain from giving a prima facie decision unless there are compelling circumstances to do so. Taking all allegations and the complaint as they were, without adding or subtracting anything, if no offence was made out, only then the High Court would be justified in quashing the proceedings in the exercise of its power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. An investigation should not be shut out at the threshold if the allegations have some substance."

10.

In the instant case, if we look into the nature of allegations and the act allegedly committed by the Petitioner and the other accused persons, it is clearly reflected that if not the charge to be established, at least, there is a strong suspicion made out from the allegations itself and the law in this regard is also very clear that even in case there are strong suspicions even then, the charge can be framed.

11.

In view of above and the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the judgments referred in the preceding paragraphs, this Court is of the opinion that no strong case has been made out by the Petitioner seeking quashment of the charges which have been framed against him. So far as the contentions

which have been put forth by Counsel for the Petitioner are concerned, they are all matter of evidence of which proper recourse would be to assail the same by adducing proper cogent evidence by either side. 12.

For the foregoing reasons, the instant Cr.M.P is dismissed. Sd/- (P. Sam Koshy) JUDGE Priya