SMT. SAMPATTI SINGH Vs. STATE OF M.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner/accused has filed this criminal revision under Sec. 397 read with section 401 of Crimial P.C. 1973 to set aside the order dated 11.09.2017 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Shahdol, in Session Trial No. 59/2013, whereby Additional Sessions Judge, Shahdol framed the charges under Sections 420, 467 and 326 read with Sec. 34 of Penal Code against the petitioner/accused.

(2.) Case of the prosecution is that on 31.01.2013 at Public Health Canter Gohparu, Sterilisation Camp was organised. Petitioner/accused and other person had conducted some forged sterilisation of villagers. Brajesh Paliha made a complaint against other accused person regarding forged sterilization on 01.02.2013. Brajesh Paliha submitted a complaint before Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat, Gohparu, District Shahdol that he is unmarried and he is resident of Village Budnwah. Co-accused-Nand Kumar and Khel Singh took him to the Community Health Centre Gohparu, where he was intoxicated and his sterilisation was done in the name of one Vijay Singh. He has filed a written complaint before In-charge of Police Station Gohparu, District Shahdol for the same. Inquiry was conducted and FIR was lodged on 01.02.2013 under Sections 420, 467, 468 and 326 of Penal Code against co-accused Nandkumar Singh and Khel Singh. During the investigation, it was found that present petitioner-accused was also involved in this case as she was the counselor. Thereafter, charge sheet has also been filed against the present petitioner-accused. The learned trial Judge has considered the material available on the record and framed the charges against the petitioner/accused.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that learned Court below committed grave error while framing the charges against the petitioner/accused. The Court below has not considered the departmental enquiry. The Health Department made an enquiry and found that the petitioner/accused was not present at that camp. There is no material available on the record against the present petitioner/accused. Complainant did not make any allegation against the petitioner/accused. The statement under Sec. 161 of complainant was recorded during the investigation. No allegation is mentioned in his statement against the petitioner/accused. Petitioner/accused is made as an accused only on the basis of her signature on the application and consent letter for sterilisation of complainant, but it is evident that she had never make any signature in application. At the time of filing of charge sheet, the police has made forged signature of the present petitioner/accused. So there is no material available against the present petitioner/accused on the record. He prays for quashing the charge against the petitioner/accused.