LALIT BANSAL Vs. THRU COMMISSIONER OF POLICE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner claims to be a qualified Direct Sales Associate of the HDFC Bank Limited, having been so appointed under a written agreement w.e.f. February, 2004 at Delhi. The petitioner carried out the business for about six months. The proceedings against the petitioner have arisen on account of the fact that the police received secret information that some persons in the office of M/s Fortune Credits were making forged documents for customers in order to facilitate obtaining loans from various banks. A decoy customer, Mr.Mahipal Singh, was put up and the accused were caught red-handed. The decoy customer visited the office of the petitioner when he was informed by the petitioner and his two associates that the needful could be done and would cost Rs.4,800/-. A sum of Rs.500/- was given as advance to the petitioner on 27.9.2004 and the decoy customer was asked to come back again on 30.9.2004 It is on 30.9.2004 that the accused were caught red-handed at the stage of delivery of documents. An FIR 503/04 dated 30.9.2004 was registered u/s 193/420/467/468/471 IPC r/w Section 120-B IPC at P.S. Preet Vihar and a charge-sheet was subsequently filed u/s 420/468/471/120-B IPC.

(2.) The trial court framed charges u/s 420/471/473/474 IPC r/w Section 34 IPC against the petitioner on 24.8.2007. The revision petition filed by the petitioner before the learned Additional Sessions Judge was dismissed on 17.12.2007. It is these orders which are now sought to be challenged.

(3.) At the inception of the hearing itself it was pointed out by learned counsel for the petitioner that there cannot be an indefinite number of tiers of judicial scrutiny for litigants. The stage of framing of charges requires the trial court to sift through the material before it to comes to a conclusion whether there was a reasonable possibility of the accused being convicted on the basis of the material on record and the charges have to be framed accordingly. The trial court, thus, in the present case applied its mind and framed the charges under the relevant provisions deemed appropriate by it. The second round of scrutiny took place in the revision proceedings when the learned Additional Sessions Judge similarly called for records and after hearing learned counsel for the parties, upheld the said order. The present proceedings have been filed u/s 482 Cr.P.C., which is the inherent powers of the High Court to make such orders as may be necessary to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or to secure the end of justice. This is an extraordinary remedy which has to be exercised sparingly and should not to be resorted to as an appeal or revision as observed by this Court in Kavita Vs. State and Ors., 2000 Crl.L.J. 315 (Del). In fact, it has been observed in State of Bihar Vs. Murad Ali Khan and Ors., (1989) Crl.L.J.1005 that the High Court would not embark upon an enquiry whether the allegations in the complaint are likely to be established by the evidence or not. This legal position has to be applied to the facts of the present case where on the issue of framing of charges, two courts have already gone through the process of scrutiny.