PRADIP KUMAR MAHARATHI Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter called the 'Code ') praying to quash the charges framed against the Petitioner by the Subdivisional Judicial Magistrate, Puri.

(2.) IT has been alleged that the Petitioner had presented his application for admission into the 5th year Class in English along with a letter bearing memo No. Ex -111 - Trans -10095/82 dated 5 -10 -1982 from the Assistant Controller of Examinations of Utkal University to the Principal, S.C. S. College, Puri in which permission had been accorded to the Petitioner for his transfer from Ravenshaw College, Cuttack to the S.C. S. College, Puri and a Transfer Certificate bearing No. Nil dated 5 -10 -1982 issued by the Principal, Ravenshaw College, Cuttack in favour of the Petitioner stating that he was a student of Ravenshaw College, from 20 -9 -1982 to 5 -10 -1982. On the basis of the aforesaid documents permission was accorded to the Petitioner on 5 -10 -1982 and he was admitted to the 5th year Class in S.C. S. College, Puri on the same day. It was subsequently revealed that the Petitioner was not a student of Ravenshaw College, during the academic Session 1982 -83 and no College Leaving Certificate or Transfer Certificate was issued in his favour by the authorities of Ravenshaw College. It has been further alleged that the aforesaid College Leaving Certificate and the Transfer Certificate were forged documents which were used by the Petitioner to obtain a permission from the University and on the basis of the said permission from Utkal University he got himself admitted in the 5th Year Class of the S.C. S. College, Puri After investigation, charge -sheet was submitted under Sections 420, 468, 471 and 120 -B of the Indian Penal Code and cognizance was taken by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Cuttack in G. R. Case No. 34/82 and the case was transferred to the Court of the Subdivisional Judicial Magistrate, Puri for disposal. It has been urged in this case that there is no material whatsoever on record justifying the charges to be framed and according to the Petitioner it is a fit case where this Court in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482, Criminal Procedure Code should quash the charges and the proceeding. It has been strenuously urged by the Petitioner that he was a student of the S.C. S. College, Puri from where he passed his B. A. examination in the academic Year 1980 -81 from Utkal University and applied to the same College for admission to the 5th Year Class in English. After receiving intimation from the Principal, he took admission in the College and he is not aware of the Certificates granted from Ravenshaw College, Cuttack said to have been forged and also the permission from Utkal University which is said to have been granted on the basis of the forged Certificates. The charges that have been framed by the Subdivisional Judicial Magistrate. Puri quoted in the application before this Court, is reproduced below for immediate reference;

(3.) IT has been strenuously urged by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner that the statements recorded under Section 161, Criminal Procedure Code and other materials on record, even if accepted in their entirety, do not constitute the offence alleged for which reason the charges framed against the Petitioner should be quashed to save him from the consequent unnecessary harassment in the continuance of the proceeding. In that connection a decision reported in Manoharlal Arora and Ors. v. Atma Prakash Arora, 1980 C.L.R. 141, has been relied upon in support of the proposition that mere suspicion however strong cannot take the place of proof in a criminal prosecution. The aforesaid proposition cannot however be made applicable to the stage of charge. In the decision reported in Dinesh Kumar Jajodia and Anr. v. State Co -operative Marketing Federation Ltd.3 (supra) the learned Judge has correctly stated the law on the subject, relying on a decision reported in State of Bihar v. Ramesh Singh : A.I.R. 1977 S.C. 2018. It has been held in the aforesaid case that at the stage of charge the Court is not to enter into a meticulous consideration of the evidence and materials placed before it. The test which is to be finally applied before recording a finding regarding the guilt or other wise of the accused, is not to be applied at the stage of deciding as to whether a charge is to be framed. At that stage the Court is not to see whether there is sufficient ground for conviction of the accused. If there is a strong suspicion which leads the Court to think that there is a ground for presuming that the accused has committed an offence, it is not open to the Court to say that there is no sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. In this context I will proceed to examine the materials to find out if the framing of the charges against the accused can be said to be an abuse of process of the Court or the same is liable to be quashed in the interest of justice. As has been held in State of Bihar v. Ramesh Singh (supra) and several other cases that the evidence and materials on record are not to be meticulously judged nor any weight is to be attached to the probable defence of the accused. At this stage it is not obligatory for the Judge to consider in detail or weigh in a sensitive balance whether the charges if proved would be incompatible to the innocence of the accused or not. In other words the standard of test and judgment which is to be finally applied before recording a finding regarding the guilt or otherwise of the accused is not exactly to be applied at the stage of framing of charges. It has been further laid in the aforesaid decision that at that stage the Court is not to see whether there is sufficient ground for conviction of the accused or whether the trial is sure to end in his conviction. Strong suspicion against the accused, if the matter remains in the region of suspicion cannot take the place of proof of his guilt at the conclusion of the trial. But at the initial stage if there is a strong suspicion which leads the Court to think that there is ground for presuming that the accused has committed an offence then it is not open to the Court to say that there is no sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. At that stage the only consideration is to decide prima facie whether the Court should proceed with the trial or not.