VIRENDRA SINGH PATEL Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner-accused has filed this criminal revision under Section 397 / 401 of Criminal Procedure Code against the order dated 05/07/2018 passed by the First Additional Sessions Judge, Shahdol, in Sessions Trial No. 226/2011 whereby learned Judge framed the charge against the petitioner-accused under Section 420 of IPC.

(2.) Prosecution story in brief is that father of the petitioner- accused was owner of land Khasra No. 1677/5/17 area 0/014 hec. situated at Village Barachh, P.S. Beohari, District Shahdol. Co-accused Indrabhan entered into an agreement on 31/11/2006 with complainants Prakash Gautam and Sharmila Gautam and received Rs. 70,000/- as advance amount but later on Indrabhan breached the agreement and entered into another agreement on 27/07/2009 with Tejpal Singh for the same property having Khasra No. 1677/5/17 area 0/014 hec. situated at Village Barachh, P.S. Beohari, District Shahdol, then complainants Prakash Gautam and Smt. Sharmila Gautam filed a complaint before Superintendent of Police, Shahdol. Matter was inquired, FIR was registered, it is found that petitioner- accused is a witness of second agreement dated 27/07/2009 and Patwari prepared a Panchanama on 13/02/2008. Petitioner- accused was mentioned as a witness in this Panchanama. The charge-sheet has been filed against the petitioner-accused also. Learned trial court framed the charge against the petitioner- accused under Section 420 of IPC.

(3.) According to the petitioner-accused the learned court below has completely overlooked as to the role played by the present petitioner for commission of the said offence. The allegations made in the complaint even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety, do not prima- facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the present petitioner-accused. There is no material against the petitioner-accused. Petitioner-accused has been made accused only on the basis of being witness in the agreement created by the party and the court below without seeing the actual fact of the case held that there is sufficient material to frame the charge. In panchanama prepared by Patwari on 13/02/2008, petitioner's signature is there, it can be seen with bare eyes that the patwari has entered last three lines mentioning the purpose of preparing panchanama. At the stage of framing of charge, the court is required to evaluate the material and documents on record with a view to find out if the facts emerging thereon are taken at their face value, all the ingredients constituting alleged offence are satisfied, but in the present case, there is no material constituting the aforesaid offence against the present petitioner-accused. There is no material on record so as to indicate that the petitioner-accused was involved in commission of the aforesaid offence so set- aside the impugned order may be set-aside. FIR was registered under Sections 467 , 468 and 420 of IPC and the case has been committed to the Court of Session who quashed the charge under Section 467 and 468 of IPC and framed the charge under 420 of IPC and remanded back the case to the Court of JMFC for trial.