The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Criminal Revision No. 1673 of 2018 Suresh Prasad Singh --------- ..… Petitioner 1.State of Jharkhand 2.Raja Ram Singh Versus ---------- ….. Opposite Parties CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY PRASAD --------- For the Petitioner : Mr. Anil Kumar Sinha, Advocate For the State : Mr. Pankaj Kumar, Spl.P.P. Ms. Shreya Saurav, Advocate --------- 07/08.09.2023 The Criminal Revision Application has been filed on behalf of the petitioner challenging the order dated 19.09.2018, passed by Smt. Vaishaly Srivastava, Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Ranchi in Sadar P.S. Case No. 20 of 2009, corresponding to G.R. No. 417 of 2009, registered under Section 406, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120 (B) of the Indian Penal Code, whereby the discharge petition filed on behalf of the petitioner has been rejected by the Court below. 2. The case of the complainant-Informant- O.P. No. 2, in brief, is that the complainant is the owner and is in possession of a piece of land, being portion of Plot No. 131, Sub-Plot no. 131/B, which
Legal Reasoning
a prima facie case has been made out against the accused. The test to determine prima facie case would depend upon the facts of each case. If the material placed before the court discloses grave suspicion against the accused, which has not been properly explained, the court will be fully justified in framing charges and proceeding with the trial. The probative value of the evidence brought on record cannot be gone into at the stage of framing charges. The court is required to evaluate the material and documents on record with a view to find out if the facts emerging there from taken at their face value disclose the ingredients constituting the alleged offence. At this stage, there cannot be a roving enquiry into the pros and cons of the matter, the evidence is not to be weighed as if a trial is being conducted. Reliance is placed on the judgment of this Court in State of Bihar v. Ramesh Singh where it has been held that at the stage of framing charges under Sections 227 or 228 Cr.P.C., if there is a strong suspicion which leads the court to think that there is ground for presuming that the accused had committed the offence, then the court should proceed with the trial. 18. It has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of M. E. Shivalingamurthy Versus Central Bureau of Investigation, Bengaluru reported in (2020) 2 SCC 768 at para17.3, 17.6 and 18 as follows:- to consider “Para-17.3:-The Judge has merely to sift the evidence in order to find out whether or not there is sufficient ground for proceeding. Evidence would consist of the statements recorded by the police or the documents produced before the Court. Para-17.6:- The court has the broad probabilities, the total effect of the evidence and the documents produced before the court, any basic infirmities appearing in the case and so on. This, however, would not entitle the court make a roving inquiry into the pros and cons. Para-18:- The defence of the accused is not to be looked into at the stage when the accused seeks to be discharged under Section 227 CrPC (see State of J&K v. Sudershan Chakkar). The expression. "the record of the case", used in Section 227 CrPC, is to be understood as the documents and the articles, if any. produced by the prosecution. The Code does not give any right to the accused to produce any document at the stage of framing of the charge. At the stage of framing of the charge. the submission of the accused is to -9- be confined to the material produced by the police (see State of Orissa v. Debendra Nath Padhi).” 19. In the light of the aforesaid judgments, it is well settled that at the stage of framing of the charges, the submission of the accused is to be confined to the materials produced by the police. 20. It is well settled that the defence of the accused cannot be looked into at the stage of filing of discharge petition. 21. Therefore, in view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court & High Court of Jharkhand and in view of the discussions made above, the impugned order dated 19.09.2018 passed by the learned Court below is upheld. Thus, this Criminal Revision Application is, hereby, dismissed. s.m. (Sanjay Prasad, J.)
Arguments
he had purchased from Smt. Nillie Rao, wife of Shankar Krishna Rao, measuring of an area of 7 Katha 8 Chhatak by virtue of Registered Deed being Sale Deed no. 12148 dated 04.12.1984. The complainant further stated that Suresh Prasad Singh-petitioner herein, is his brother-in-law from -2- his first wife Late Ramuna Devi, who expired on 30.06.1995. The complainant was Assistant Engineer in Bihar State Electricity Board and was posted at Ranchi in the year 1973 to 1979 and again in the year 1980 to 1985 and during his stay at Ranchi, he purchased the above said land but Suresh Prasad Singh-petitioner herein, in criminal conspiracy set up an imposter (unknown to the complainant) and prepared a forged sale deed dated 19.12.1995 which was registered on 16.01.1996. He further stated and alleged that he had given original sale deed dated 04.12.1984 to his brother-in-law Suresh Prasad Singh in good faith and on demand Suresh Prasad Singh stated that the said sale deed has been lost by his nephew Awadhesh Prasad in course of travelling in bus. The forged sale deed stands in the name of Smt. Yashomati Devi-wife of the petitioner, who helped in fabrication of document, which the complainant came to know on 22.10.2008 and 26.12.2008 for which a Panchayati was held to settle the dispute of the property above said but the negotiation failed. Thereafter, the complainant filed the Complaint Case No. 47 of 2009 and the same has been sent by the learned court under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C. to institute an F.I.R., which has been registered being Sadar P.S. Case No. 20 of 2009. -3- 3. Heard Mr. Anil Kumar Sinha, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, assisted by Ms. Shreya Saurav, learned counsel and Mr. Pankaj Kumar, learned Spl.P.P. on behalf of the State. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that impugned order, i.e. Order dated 19.09.2018 passed by the Court below is illegal, arbitrary and not sustainable in the eye of law. It has been submitted that land of one Neillie Rao was transferred in the name of O.P. No.2, who is the Brother-in-law (Bahnoi) of this petitioner. It is submitted that after taking permission of O.P. No. 2 the petitioner has constructed a house on the said plot and later on a registered sale deed dated 19.12.1995 was executed by the O.P. No. 2 in the name of the wife of this petitioner. It is submitted that the petitioner has also filed Title suit, being Title Suit No. 435 of 2010 before the learned Sub- Judge-VIII, Ranchi which is still pending. It is submitted that allegation of forged sale deed is not sustainable and as such the impugned order may be set aside. 5. On the other hand the learned Special P.P. appearing for the State has submitted that the order passed by the Court below is fit and proper and no interference is required from this Court. It is submitted that the petitioner has committed forgery and has set up one unknown person to execute sale deed on behalf of the O.P. No. 2 in the name of the wife of this petitioner. It is further submitted that at -4- the stage of framing of charges the defence of the accused cannot be looked into. It is further submitted that the petitioner earlier moved before this Court in Cr.M.P. No.2117 of 2013, which was dismissed on 04.2.2015 by the order of a Co- ordinate Bench of this Court and thereafter the matter went to the Supreme Court, wherein it has also been dismissed on 09.09.2016 and thus this criminal revision is not maintainable and may be dismissed. 6. Perused the record of this case and considered the submission of both the sides. 7. It appears that the petitioner has been named in the F.I.R. 8. It appears that the petitioner has set up an imposter in the name of O.P. No. 2 to execute the sale deed in the name of Yashomati Devi, i.e. wife of the petitioner. 9. It also appears that the petitioner has moved before this Court vide Cr.M.P. No.2117 of 2013, which was dismissed on 04.2.2015. 10. It also appears from the impugned order that the petitioner had also earlier filed Cr.M.P. No. 1259 of 2010, which was dismissed on 12.01.2018 by a Bench of the High Court of Jharkhand. However, while filing this Criminal Revision No. 1673 of 2018, the petitioner has suppressed this fact that he has filed Cr.M.P. No. 1259 of 2010 before this Court. -5- 11. It also transpires that after dismissal of the Cr.M.P. No.2117 of 2013 the matter went to the Hon’ble Supreme Court and it was dismissed on 09.09.2016. 12. Although the petitioner has not enclosed the copy of the said order dated 04.02.2015 but the web copy of operative portion of the order dated 04.02.2015 passed in Cr.M.P No.2117 of 2013 reads as under:- “ ……. The allegations in the present case cannot be said to be of such a nature so as to come within the parameters of a civil liability necessitating/availing of only civil remedies by the opposite party No.2. There has been specific allegation against the petitioners which has subsequently been proved by the report of the Forensic Science Laboratory and in such circumstance when there is an element of criminality into the allegations levelled against the petitioners this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C is not empowered to quash the entire criminal proceedings. The judgment referred to by the learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 was with respect to the stay of a civil suit till the decision of a criminal case and in the facts and circumstances of the present case the said judgment is not at all applicable. In view of what has been discussed above, I am of the view that no case is made out by the petitioners to warrant interference by this Court. Accordingly, there being no merit in this application, the same is, hereby dismissed.” -6- 13. It further transpires from the pleading of the petitioner that he has challenged the order dated 04.02.2015 passed in Cr.M.P No.2117 of 2013 before the Hon’ble Supreme Court which was dismissed on 09.09.2016 by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. However, neither the copy of the said order dated 09.09.2016 nor the case number filed before the Hon’ble Supreme Court has been enclosed in this Criminal Revision Application by the petitioner and this amounts to suppression of material fact. 14. It further transpires that the petitioner has suppressed the fact of filing another Criminal Miscellaneous Petitioner, being Cr.M.P.No.1259 of 2010 before the High Court of Jharkhand for quashing the F.I.R dated 31.01.2009 relating to Sadar P.S Case No.20 of 2009 which was withdrawn by the petitioner and another on 12.01.2018 and thus the petitioner is further guilty of suppressing this fact from this Court and on this ground alone, this Criminal Revision is liable to be dismissed. 15. It has been held in the case of Anup Kumar Lakhotia Vs. The Union of India through Central Bureau of Investigation reported in 2022 (1) JLJR page 127 and Para-25 of the said judgment is as follows: “Para-25:- The learned court below, while considering the petition for discharge considered the scope of Section 227 of Cr. P. C. and recorded that hearing the submissions of the accused as postulated by Section 227 means hearing the submissions of the accused on the record of the case as filed by the prosecution and documents submitted therewith and nothing more. The -7- expression ‘hearing the submissions of the accused’ cannot mean opportunity to file material is to be granted to the accused. At the stage of framing of charge hearing the submissions of the accused has to be confined to the material produced by the police.” 16. It has been held that in the case of State By The Inspector Of Police, Chennai vs. S. Selvi and Another reported in 2018 (13) SCC 455 at paragraph No.10 as follows:- “Para-10:- If on the basis of the material on record, the Court would form prima facie opinion that the accused might have committed the offence, it can frame charge, though for conviction it is required to be proved beyond reasonable doubt that the accused has committed the offence. At the time of framing of charges, the probative value of the material on record has to be gone into and the Court is not expected to go deep into the matter and hold that the materials would not warrant conviction. The Court is required to evaluate the material on record at the stage of Sections 227 or 239 of the Code, as the case may be, only with a view to find out if the facts emerging therefrom taken at the face value discloses the existence of all the ingredients constituting the alleged offence. It is trite that at the stage of consideration of an application for discharge, the Court has to proceed with the presumption that materials brought on record by the prosecution are true and evaluate such material with a view to find out whether the facts emerging therefrom taken at their face value disclose existence of the ingredients of the offence.” 17. It has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State (NCT of Delhi) Vs. Shiv Charan Bansal and Ors and in the case of Kanta Devi Vs. State (NCT of Delhi) and Ors. reported in (2020) 2 SCC 290 at para-39 as follows:- “Para-39:- The court while considering the question of framing charges under Section 227 CrPC has the power to sift and weigh the evidence for the limited purpose of finding out whether or not -8-