PRAMOD KUMAR LIHKHAR Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Both these Criminal Revisions have been filed against the order(s) dated 02.12.2015, passed by Second Additional Sessions Judge, Dindori, framing charges under Sections 467 read with 109, 420 read with 120-B, 468 read with 109, 471 read with 120-B, 409 read with 120-B and 201 of I.P.C. against Pramod Kumar Lihkhar (petitioner in Cr.R. No.3250/2015) and under Sections 467 read with 109, 420 read with 120-B, 468 read with 109, 471 read with 120-B and 409 read with 120-B of I.P.C. against Bhupendra Kumar Prabhat (petitioner in Cr.R. No.197/2016).

(2.) The brief facts of the case, as emerged from the material on record are that the First Information Report came to be registered on the basis of a written complaint dated 08.09.2005, filed by Pramod Kumar Lihkhar (petitioner in Cr.R. No.3250/2015), Branch Manager, Central Bank of India, Branch Ajwar, district Dindori, wherein it was disclosed that Ramanand Jha and Suresh Chourasiya, who had their accounts with the Central Bank of India, committed fraud by depositing fictitious cheques drawn on State Bank of India, Dindori Branch in their accounts and later on withdrew the money. After registration of the FIR, the investigating officer recorded the statement of witnesses and seized the account opening forms, withdrawal forms and deposit slips/receipts/counter slip received from the SBI, Dindori, from the office of Central Bank of India.

(3.) Upon completion of investigation, initially charge sheet was filed against four accused persons, namely, Abhinandan Soni, Yogesh Pandey, Suresh Chourasiya and Ramanand Jha. By way of additional charge sheet, the petitioners have been arrayed as accused, as they were respectively posted as Branch Manager and Cashier in the Central Bank of India, Branch Ajwar, district Dindori, at the relevant time. Upon committal, the Second Additional Sessions Judge, Dindori framed the charges against the accused persons, who pleaded non-guilty. The petitioners/accused persons have therefore filed the present revisions challenging the order dated 02.12.2015, framing the charges as aforementioned and continuation of proceedings.