(BY SHRI CHETAN KANUNGO - ADVOCATE) v. This revision petition u/s. 397/401 of Code of Criminal

(SHRI RAJEEV UPADHYAY – GOVT. ADVOCATE) -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- …..RESPONDENT This petition coming on for admission this day, Hon'ble Shri 2 Justice Sanjeev S Kalgaonkar passed the following: ORDER This revision petition u/s. 397/401 of Code of Criminal Procedure is filed against the order dated 14.12.2022 passed in RCT No. 400 of 2020 by Eighth Additional Sessions Judge, Gwalior. The Criminal Revision inter alia states as under:- Branch Manager State Bank of India, Jiwaji Chowk, Lashkar, Gwalior has filed complaint that the petitioner has applied for personal loan of Rs 80,000/-. He has submitted pay slip and other documents along with application for loan. Accordingly, he was granted loan of Rs. 80,000/-. Due to non- payment of loan on time, the account of petitioner was converted into NPA. On enquiry, it was revealed that applicant has submitted forged documents for grant of loan. Branch Manager preferred written complaint at P.S. Kotwali whereupon Crime No.0037 of 2018 for offence punishable u/Ss. 420, 467, 468 of IPC was registered against the petitioner. On investigation, it was revealed that Uttam Singh Solanki used to forged documents for loan and Lakhan Lal used to prepare the documents for personal loan. Narendra Savita used to affix forged seal on the documents. On completion of investigation final report was filed against the petitioner Surendra and other co- accused. Petitioner /accused submitted application u/s 227 of Cr.P.C. 3 Learned trial Court vide order dated 14.12.2022 rejected the application of petitioner/accused and framed charges for offence punishable u/Ss. 420, 120-B, 467/120, 467/109 468/120-B, 468/109 and Section 471 of IPC against him. The impugned order dated 14.12.2022 is assailed in this petition on following grounds.

1. The material collected during investigation prima facie establishes that co-accused Uttam Solanki in association with Narendra Savita used to forged the documents for personal loan.

2. There is no allegation of forgery or fabrication of documents against the petitioner rather petitioner is victim of fraud and cheating committed by Uttam Singh Solanki and Narendra Savita.

3. The petitioner has not created any forged document therefore, charged u/s. 467 and 468 of IPC is not made out against the petitioner. On these grounds, it is requested that impugned order dated

14.12.2022 be set aside and the accused/petitioner Surendra be discharged from offence punishable u/Ss. 420, 120-B, 467/120, 467/109 468/120-B, 468/109 and Section 471 of IPC. Learned Counsel for the petitioner relying on judgment of Supreme Court in Case of Sheila Sebastian vs. R. Jawaharaj reported in (2018) 7 SCC 581 submits that petitioner Surendra is not maker of forged documents, therefore, charge of forgery cannot be imposed on him. No ingredients of criminal conspiracy 4 are available on record, therefore, offence u/s 120-B of IPC is not made out against the petitioner. Per contra, learned Counsel for the State submits that learned Trial Court on consideration of material on record framed charges against the petitioner. No case for invoking supervisory revisional jurisdiction is made out. Heard both the parties and perused the record and case diary. Under Section 397 of the Cr.P.C, the Court is vested with the power to call for and examine the record of any inferior Court for the purpose of satisfying itself as to legality and regularity of any proceedings or order made in a case. The object is of this provision is to correct the patent defect or an error of jurisdiction or the perversity which has crept in the proceedings. It has been held by the Supreme Court in the cases of State of Bihar Vs. Ramesh Singh, AIR 1977 Supreme Court 2018, Superintendent and Remembrancer of Legal Affairs West Bengal Vs. Anil Kumar Bhunja, AIR 1980 SC 52, Sanghi Brothers (Indore) Private Limited Vs. Sanjay Choudhary and Others, 2009 Cr.L.J 338 and Shoraj Singh Ahlawat Vs. State of U.P, AIR 2013 SC 52: Deepakbhai Jagdishchandra Patel vs State of Gujarat (2019) 6 SCC 547 that at the stage of framing charge, even a strong suspicion founded upon the materials before the Court, which leads to form a presumptive opinion as to the existence of factual ingredients constituting the offence alleged, may justify the framing of charge against the accused in respect of 5 the commission of that offence. The probative value of evidence brought on record can not be gone into at the stage of framing charges. The Court is required to evaluate the material and documents on record with a view merely to find out, if the fact emerging therefrom taken at their face value disclose ingredients constituting the alleged offence. The veracity and effect of the evidence are not to be meticulously judged at this stage, nor is any weight to be attached to probable defence of accused at the stage of framing of charges. The Supreme Court in the case of Amit Kapoor Vs Ramesh Chander and Another (2012)9 SCC 460, laid down principle to be considered for exercise of jurisdiction under Section 397 of the Cr.P.C, particularly in the context of quashing of charges framed under Sections 228 of the Cr.P.C.

27.Having discussed the scope of jurisdiction under these two provisions i.e. Section 397 and Section 482 of the Code and the fine line of jurisdictional distinction, now it will be appropriate for us to enlist the principles with reference to which the courts should exercise such jurisdiction. However, it is not only difficult but is inherently impossible to state with precision such principles. At best and upon objective analysis of various judgments of this Court, we are able to cull out some of the principles to be considered for proper exercise of jurisdiction, particularly, with regard to quashing of charge either in exercise of jurisdiction under Section 397 or Section 482 of the Code or together, as the case may be: 27.1.Though there are no limits of the powers of the Court under Section 482 of the Code but the more the power, the more due care and caution is to be exercised in invoking these powers. The power of quashing criminal proceedings, 6 particularly, the charge framed in terms of Section 228 of the Code should be exercised very sparingly and with circumspection and that too in the rarest of rare cases. 27.2.The Court should apply the test as to whether the uncontroverted allegations as made from the record of the case and the documents submitted therewith prima facie establish the offence or not. If the allegations are so patently absurd and inherently improbable that no prudent person can ever reach such a conclusion and where the basic ingredients of a criminal offence are not satisfied then the Court may interfere. 27.3.The High Court should not unduly interfere. No meticulous examination of the evidence is needed for considering whether the case would end in conviction or not at the stage of framing of charge or quashing of charge. 27.9.Another very significant caution that the courts have to observe is that it cannot examine the facts, evidence and materials on record to determine whether there is sufficient material on the basis of which the case would end in a conviction; the court is concerned primarily with the allegations taken as a whole whether they will constitute an offence and, if so, is it an abuse of the process of court leading to injustice. 27.13.Quashing of a charge is an exception to the rule of continuous prosecution. Where the offence is even broadly satisfied, the Court should be more inclined to permit continuation of prosecution rather than its quashing at that initial stage. The Court is not expected to marshal the records with a view to decide admissibility and reliability of the documents or records but is an opinion formed prima facie. Recently in the case of State of Tamil Nadu Vs R. Soundirarasu, (2023) 6 SCC 768, the Supreme Court observed as

78. In Munna Devi. State of Rajasthan[Munna 7 Deviv.State of Rajasthan, (2001) 9 SCC 631 : 2002 SCC (Cri) 775] , this Court held as under : (SCC p. 632, para 3) “3. … The revision power under the Code of Criminal Procedure cannot be exercised in a routine and casual manner. While exercising such powers the High Court has no authority to appreciate the evidence in the manner as the trial and the appellate courts are required to do. Revisional powers could be exercised only when it is shown that there is a legal bar against the continuance of the criminal proceedings or the framing of charge or the facts as stated in the first information report even if they are taken at the face value and accepted in their entirety do not constitute the offence for which the accused has been charged.” 79.Thus, the revisional power cannot be exercised in a casual or mechanical manner. It can only be exercised to correct manifest error of law or procedure which would occasion injustice, if it is not corrected. The revisional power cannot be equated with the appellate power. A Revisional Court cannot undertake meticulous examination of the material on record as it is undertaken by the trial court or the appellate court. This power can only be exercised if there is any legal bar to the continuance of the proceedings or if the facts as stated in the charge-sheet are taken to be true on their face value and accepted in their entirety do not constitute the offence for which the accused has been charged. It is conferred to check grave error of law or procedure. 80.This Court in Asian Resurfacing of Road Agency (P) Ltd.v.CBI[Asian Resurfacing of Road Agency (P) Ltd. v. CBI, (2018) 16 SCC 299 : (2020) 1 SCC (Cri) 686], has held that interference in the order framing charges or refusing to discharge is called for in the rarest 8 of rare case only to correct the patent error of jurisdiction. In the backdrop of aforesaid proposition of law, the contentions of both the parties are considered. As per the case of prosecution, the petitioner has received loan of Rs. 80,000/- on the basis of forged pay slip and documents relating to his service with MPSEB. The petitioner is ultimate beneficiary of the alleged forgery and cheating. He has signed the loan application form and verified other forged documents for grant of personal loan. Therefore, in view of definition of false document u/s. 464 of IPC, prima facie ingredients to constitute offence of forgery are available on record. The law laid down in the case of Sheila Sebastian (supra) is of no assistance to the petitioner in the obtaining facts and circumstances of the case. Criminal conspiracy is generally hatched in secret, therefore, it is difficult, if not impossible, to obtain direct evidence. Criminal conspiracy is generally proved by circumstantial evidence by taking into account the cumulative effect of the circumstances indicating the guilt of accused. In the case of Kehar Singh Vs Delhi Administration 1988 SCC 609, it was held that the offence of conspiracy requires some kind of physical manifestation of the agreement. However, the same need not to be proved, nor it is necessary to prove the actual words of communication. It is sufficient if there is tacit understanding between the conspirator for the execution of common illegal object. 9 The evidence on record makes out grave suspicion of premeditation and prior concert between the petitioner and co- accused to commit forgery and cheating in order to secure personal loan from the bank. Thus, sufficient material is available for framing of charge of conspiracy to commit offences of cheating and forgery. Learned Trial Court committed no error in framing aforementioned charges against the revision petitioner. From the foregoing discussion, this Court comes to the conclusion that the impugned order does not suffer from any illegality or impropriety. No case for interference in exercise of revisional jurisdiction is made out. The petition sans merits and is hereby dismissed. However, it is clarified that the observations made herein shall have no bearing on the merits of the case. (Sanjeev S Kalgaonkar) Judge ABDUR RAHMAN 11:19:57 +05'30'