AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
This criminal revision under Section 397 read with Section 401 of Cr.P.C, 1973, has been filed by the petitioner (complainant) against the order dated 20.11.2015 passed by the learned Special Judge, Ratlam, Distt. Ratlam in S.T. No.144/2015, whereby learned trial court has framed charge under Section 420, 420 read with Section 120 (B), 119 of IPC against the respondents and discharged the respondents from Sections 294, 506, 118, 167, 196, 201, 212, 218, 384, 465, 467, 468, 469 and 471, IPC.
Brief facts of the case are that the respondent No.1 - Subodh Mishra, acquired property in Ratlam. He transferred part of the land in favour of Anurag Shukla. Subodh Mishra pursuaded Rakesh Vyas to enter into agreement for the purpose of erecting hotel. A partnership deed was executed in which Subodh Mishra contributed the land and construction was to be made by the complainant alongwith Navin, Damodar and Suresh. The contribution of complainant Rakesh Vyas was 34% and 30% each of Naveen and Suresh,. After construction of hotel Navin and Suresh transferred their right and title in favour of the complainant Rakesh Vyas. At the time of entering into contract Subodh Mishra, Navin and Suresh Gurjar gave a power of Attorney to Subodh Mishra to run a hotel. A partnership deed was executed in which Subodh Mishra contributed the land and construction was to be made by the complainant along with Navin, Damodar and Suresh. The contribution of complainant Rakesh Vyas was 34% and 30% each of Naveen and Suresh. After construction of hotel Navin and Suresh transferred their right and title in favour of the complainant Rakesh Vyas. At the time of entering into the contract, Subodh Mishra, Navin and Suresh gave a power of attorney to Subodh Mishra to run hotel. Complainant has spent Rs.75,00,000/- on the construction of hotel. Subodh Mishra, purporting to be owner has entered into an agreement to sale the property including the property transferred by him in favour of Anurag Shukla (maternal uncle''s son) for a consideration of Rs.68,00,000/- and obtained Rs.20,00,000/- as earnest money and balance of Rs.48,00,000/- were to be paid after deducting the money owned by Subodh Mishra to the Bank in regard to the property. After entering into the contract for himself and on behalf of Anurag Shukla, has not executed a sale deed. Anurag Shukla has supported Subodh Mishra to cheat Rakesh Vyas. The complainant Rakesh Vyas made a complaint to Superintendent of Police, Ratlam. The complaint was sent by CJM, Ratlam to P.S., Ratlam under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C for enquiry and report. On enquiry conducted by police it was found that case be registered. The Deputy Director, Prosecution, Ratlam agreed with the report. However, Dinesh Sharma, concealing the report and opinion of the Deputy Director, Prosecution in conspiracy to cheat the complainant with Subodh Mishra and Anurag Shukla submitted report before the C.J.M., Ratlam, that no case is made out of complaint of Rakesh Vyas, because it is purely a civil dispute. It is alleged that Dinesh Sharma, who was staying with his cousin Prashant Sharma, managed to get an application filed by Seema wife of Prashant Sharma, before the Industries Department purporting to run Nylon Rope Industries on the land alleging that she has obtained the land on lease. Dinesh Sharma, has conspired with Subodh Mishra, Anurag Shukla, Vishnu Datt Dubey, Seema wife of Umesh Sharma, Sunita wife of Subodh Mishra and Seema wife of Prashant Sharma and on 19.10.2010 Anurag Shukla transferred the property in favour of Seema wife of Umesh Sharma, Seema wife of Prashant Sharma and Sunita wife of Subodh Mishra and Vishnu Datt Dubey made a false version that possession has been given by Anurag Shukla to all the three ladies. On the aforesaid allegations, complaint has been lodged by Rakesh Vyas, upon which the learned CJM directed a police to registered a case. On the basis of this Crime No.453/2012, has been registered under Sections 294, 506, 118, 167, 196, 201, 212, 218, 384, 465, 467, 468, 469 and 471, IPC.
The respondent No.3 - Seema wife of Prashant Niwas, the respondent No.4 Seema wife of Umesh Sharma, the respondent No.5 - Dinesh Sharma son of Kailash Sharma, challenged the order dated 6.10.2012 whereby, the CJM, Ratlam has directed the registration of FIR under Sections 294, 506, 118, 167, 196, 201, 212, 218, 384, 465, 467, 468, 469 and 471, IPC. Vide M.Cr.C.No.3710/2014 (Smt. Seema Sharma wife of Umesh Sharma), M.Cr.C.No.9416/2014 (Smt. Seema Sharma wife of Prashant V/s. State of M.P. & Anr.) and M.Cr.C.No.9668/2012 (Dinesh son of Kailash Sharma V/s. State of M.P.), the respondents No.3,4 & 5 (Smt. Seema Sharma wife of Umesh Sharma, Smt. Seema Sharma wife of Prashant and Dinesh son of Kailash Sharma), challenged the order of CJM dated 6.10.2012 by filing petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C, 1973. This court by order dated 27.2.2015, came to the conclusion that the case of the petitioners therein, are not covered by any of the category State of Haryana & Ors. V/s. Ch. Bhajan Lal & Ors. reported as AIR 1992 SC 604 and prima facie the complaint discloses commission of offence by the petitioners therein, therefore, no case is made out for exercising the powers under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., and dismissed all the three miscellaneous criminal cases. Order dated 27.2.2015 is relevant which reads as under :- "All these petitions have been filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. for quashing the order dated 6.10.2012, whereby CJM, Ratlam has directed the Police to hold an enquiry with regard to the complaint filed by respondent No.2 and thereafter directed registration of FIR under sections 118, 119, 167, 196, 201, 212, 218, 384, 294, 465, 120 and 469 of IPC.
Brief facts of the case are that Subodh Mishra acquired property in Ratlam. He transferred part of the land in favour of Anurag Shukla. Subodh Mishra pursuaded Rakesh Vyas to enter into agreement for the purpose of erecting hotel. A partnership deed was executed in which Subodh Mishra contributed the land and construction was to be made by the complainant alongwith Navin, Damodar and Suresh. The contribution of complainant Rakesh Vyas was 34% and 30% each of Naveen and Suresh. After construction of hotel Navin and Suresh transferred their right and title in favour of the complainant Rakesh Vyas. At the time of entering into contract Subodh Mishra, Navin and Suresh Gurjar gave a Power of Attorney to Subodh Mishra to run a hotel. Complainant has spent Rs.75,00,000/- on the construction of hotel. Subodh Mishra purporting to be owner, has entered into an agreement to sale the property including the property transferred by him in favour of Anurag Shukla (maternal uncle''s son) for a consideration of Rs.68,00,000/ and obtained Rs.20,00,000/- as earnest money and balance of Rs.48,00,000/- were to be paid after deducting the money owed by Subodh Mishra to the Bank in regard to the property. After entering into the contract for himself and on behalf of Anurag Shukla has not executed the sale deed. Anurag Shukla has supported Subodh Mishra to cheat Rakesh Vyas. The complainant Rakesh Vyas made a complaint to Supdt.of Police, Ratlam. The complaint was sent by the CJM, Ratlam to P.S., Ratlam under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. for enquiry and report. On enquiry conducted by Police it was found that case be registered. The Deputy Director, Prosecution, Ratlam agreed with the report. However, Dinesh Sharma concealing the report and opinion of the Deputy Director, Prosecution in conspiracy to cheat the complainant with Subodh Mishra and Anurag Shukla submitted report before the C.J.M. Ratlam that no case is made out on the complaint of Rakesh Vyas, because it is purely a civil dispute. It is alleged that Dinesh Sharma, who was staying with his cousin Prashant Sharma managed to get an application filed by Seema W/o Prashant Sharma before the Industries Department purporting to run Nylon Rope Industries on the land alleging that she has obtained the land on lease. Dinesh Sharma has conspired with Subodh Mishra, Anurag Shukla, Vishnu Datt Dubey, Seema W/o Umesh Sharma, Sunita W/o Subodh Mishra and seema W/o Prashant Sharma and on 19.10.2010 Anurag Shukla transferred the property in favour of Seema W/o Umesh Sharma, Seema W/o Prashant Sharma and Sunita W/o Subodh Mishra and Vishnu Datt Dubey made a false version that possession has been given by Anurag Shukla to all the three ladies. On the aforesaid allegations complaint has been lodged by Rakesh Vyas, upon which learned CJM directed the Police to register a case. On the basis of this Crime No.453/2012 has been registered.
On behalf of Shri Dinesh Sharma, it is submitted that there is no material to prosecute the petitioner. It is further submitted that the petitioner is a Police Officer and he has submitted the report after due enquiry. It is further submitted that dispute is purely a civil dispute, hence his prosecution would be abuse of process of law.
On behalf of Smt.Seema Sharma W/o Umesh Sharma and Smt.Seema Sharma W/o Prashant Sharma it is submitted that they along with Smt. Sunita Mishra jointly purchased the land for a consideration of Rs.10,80,000/- from Anurag Shukla vide registered sale deed dated 19.10.2010. They are the bona fide purchasers and after due enquiry they purchased the land. Prima facie there is no material against the petitioners for hatching the conspiracy with Subodh Mishra and Anurag Shukla. It is further submitted that upon presentation of complaint the learned CJM choose to send the complaint under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. on 15.6.2012 and after submission of the report the learned CJM had not chosen to register any FIR. Thereafter, again exercising powers under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. directed the respondent No.1 to register the FIR It is submitted that when at the preliminary stage learned CJM had exercised his powers under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. then on the subsequent stage the same powers could not be exercised by the CJM. It is further submitted that the dispute is purely civil dispute, hence prayed for quashing of the FIR and charge sheet.
Learned counsel appearing for the respondent submitted that the petitioners have hatched conspiracy with co-accused Subodh Mishra, Anurag Shukla, Vishnu Datt Dubey to cheat the complainant and in pursuance of the same petitioner Dinesh Sharma has submitted a false report just to save Subodh Mishra and Anurag Shukla. It is further submitted that execution of sale deed by Anurag Shukla to Smt.Seema Sharma W/o Umesh Sharma, who is none other, but wife of brother of Dinesh Sharma, further shows that Dinesh Sharma hatched conspiracy. So far as the petitioner Smt.Seema W/o Prashant Sharma and Sunita W/o Subodh Mishra are concerned they also hatched conspiracy with Subodh Mishra, Anurag Shukla and Dinesh and got the sale deed executed in their favour without paying any consideration. These petitioners cannot be said to be bonafide purchasers of the property.
I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for parties and perused the record. Sale deed executed by Subodh Mishra, proprietor of M/s Sarvoday Automobiles in favour of Anurag Shukla reveals that 0.09 hectare of khasra No.15/9 has been sold to Anurag Shukla. From the partnership deed dated 21.2.2007 it appears that Subodh Mishra executed the partnership deed showing he is owner of the land survey No.15/1 0.210 hectares, while he has already sold 0.090 Aare to Anurag Shukla on 25.6.1988 as per the sale deed. The agreement dated 1.3.2009 has been executed in between Subodh Mishra and Rakesh Vyas, which was renewed on 31.8.2009 by Subodh Mishra on his behalf and as Power of Attorney holder of Anurag Shukla. The sale deed dated 19.10.2010 reveals that Anurag Shukla has executed the registered sale deed of survey No.15/2 area 0.90 hectare to Sunita W/o Subodh Mishra, Seema W/o Umesh Sharma and Seema W/o Prashant Sharma.
As regards conspiracy the Hon''ble Apex Court in the case of Kehar Singh Vs. The State (Delhi Admn.), reported in AIR 1988 SC 1883, has observed as under. :-
"272. Generally, conspiracy is hatched in secrecy and it may be difficult to adduce direct evidence of the same. The prosecution will often rely on evidence of acts of various parties to infer that they were done in reference to their common intention. The prosecution will also more often rely upon circumstantial evidence. The conspiracy can be undoubtedly proved by such evidence direct or circumstantial. But the Court must enquire whether the two persons are independently pursuing the same end or they have come together to the pursuit of the unlawful object. The former does not render them conspirators, but the latter does. It is, however, essential that the offence of conspiracy required some kind of physical agreement, however, need not be proved. Nor actual meeting of two persons is necessary. Nor it is necessary to prove the actual words of communication. The evidence as to transmission of thoughts sharing the unlawful design may be sufficient Gerald Orchard of University of Canterbury, New Zealand.
Although, it is not in doubt that the offence requires some physical manifestation of agreement, it is important to note the limited nature of this proposition. The law does not require that the act of agreement take any particular form and the fact of agreement may be communicated by words or conduct. Thus, it has been said that it is unnecessary to prove that the parties "actually came together and agreed in terms" to pursue the unlawful object; there need never have been an express verbal agreement, it being sufficient that there was "a tacit understanding between conspirators as to what should be done."
In the case of Firozuddin Basheeruddin and others Vs. State of Kerala, reported in (2001) 7 SCC 596, the Hon''ble Apex Court has observed as under :-
"Criminal conspiracy is not easy to prove. The conspirators invariably deliberate, plan and act in secret over a period of time. It is not necessary that each one of them must have actively participated in the commission of the offence or was involved in it from start to finish. What is important is that they were involved in the conspiracy or in other words, there is a ''combination by agreement, which may be express or implied and in part implied. The conspiracy arises and the offence is committed as soon as the agreement is made and the offence continues to be committed so long as the combination persists, that is until the conspiratorial agreement is terminated by completion of its performance or by abandonment or frustration''. The Court has to be satisfied that there is a reasonable ground to believe the existence of the conspiracy and that is a matter for judicial inference from proved facts and circumstances. Once the existence of conspiracy is proved or held to exist, no doubt on relevant evidence, every act, declaration and writing of any one of the conspirators referable to the common intention will be relevant. Hearsay is not excluded if it could be brought within the parameters of Section 10 of the Evidence Act."
In the backdrop of the aforesaid principles if we examine the present case, it becomes clear that Subodh Mishra and Anurag Shukla from the very beginning were having dishonest intention. Subodh Mishra knowing that he had already executed the sale deed of part of the property in favour of Anurag Shukla and he is not the owner of the entire property instigated the complainant to enter into partnership and got constructed a hotel and there after with an dishonest intention agreed to sale the property and after taking earnest money did not executed sale deed. Dinesh Sharma submitted a false report concealing the opinion given by Dy. Director Prosecution and there after a sale deed of the property has got executed in favor of Sunita wife of Subodh Mishra, Seema wife of Umesh Sharma, brother of Dinesh and Seema Sharma wife of Prashant Sharma, a relative of Dinesh and Subodh. All these facts clearly goes to show that Dinesh Sharma, Smt.Seema W/o Umesh Sharma, and Smt.Seema W/o Prashant Sharma alongwith the co-accused Subodh Mishra, Sunita wife of Subodh Mishra, Anurag Shukla, Vishnu Datt Dubey hatched conspiracy to cheat the complainant and also actively participated in commission of cheating.
The Hon''ble Apex Court in the case of State of Haryana and others Vs. Ch.Bhajan Lal and others, reported in AIR 1992 SC 604, has given illustration of the categories of cases, wherein the power could be exercised. These are as under. :-
"1. Where the allegations made in the First Information Report or 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 accused.
Where the allegations in the First Information Report and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR, do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by Police Officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code.
Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused.
Where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a Police Officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code.
Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused.
Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a sepcific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party.
Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge."
In R.Kalyani Vs. Janak C.Mehta and others, reported in (2009) 1 SCC 516, the Hon''ble Apex Court after examining the catena of cases laid down following propositions of law, under. :-
"15. Propositions of law which emerge from the said decisions are :
(1) The High Court ordinarily would not exercise its inherent jurisdiction to quash a criminal proceeding and, in particular, a first information report unless the allegations contained therein, even if given face value and taken to be correct in their entirety, disclosed no cognizable offence.
(2) For the said purpose the Court, save and except in very exceptional circumstances, would not look to any document relied upon by the defence.
(3) Such a power should be exercised very sparingly. If the allegations made in the FIR disclose commission of an offence, the Court shall not go beyond the same and pass an order in favour of the accused to hold absence of any mens rea or actus reus.
(4) If the allegation discloses a civil dispute, the same by itself may not be a ground to hold that the criminal proceedings should not be allowed to continue."
Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners placing reliance on the decision in the case of Paramjeet Batra Vs. State of Uttarakhand, reported in 2013(I) MPWN 56, submits that the dispute is of purely civil nature and further that the civil suit has also been filed, hence the prosecution by way of criminal proceedings would be abuse of process of law.
On the other hand learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent No.2 placing reliance on the decision of Mosiruddin Munshi Vs. Md.Siraj and another, reported in AIR 2014 SC 3352, submitted that the allegation made in the complaint clearly goes to show that the petitioners hatched conspiracy to cheat the complainant, hence pendency of the civil suit by itself may not be a ground to hold that criminal proceedings should not be allowed to continue.
I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel. In the instant case as noticed petitioners alongwith co-accused hatched conspiracy to cheat the complainant and in pursuance of the conspiracy Subodh Mishra entered into partnership with complainant purporting himself to be owner of the property and induced the complainant to construct hotel while some of the portion was already soled to Anurag Shukla and later on it was sold to his wife Sunita, Smt.Seema W/o Umesh Sharma (cousin brother of Dinesh Sharma) and Smt.Seema W/o Prashant Sharma, it cannot be said that it is purely dispute of civil nature.In the light of Kalyani (supra) the submission of the learned counsel has no merits.
Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners further submitted that once the learned CJM has sent the complaint for enquiry and report exercising powers under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C., again the power under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. cannot be exercised by CJM. Reliance has been placed on a decision rendered by this Court in the matter of Bachhu Lal Sharma and others Vs. State of M.P.and another, reported in 2014(2) MPHT 309. The Hon''ble Apex Court in the case of Samaj Parivartan Samudaya and others Vs. State of Karnataka and others, reported in AIR 2012 SC 2326, while analyzing the power of the Magistrate to direct enquiry under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. has held that it is only a nature of interim direction to remind the Police to exercise their power of investigation. It is also held that there is implied power of Magistrate to direct the Police for registration of the FIR. Thus this submission of learned counsel for the petitioners have no force.
In view of the aforesaid discussion, I come to the conclusion that the present case is not covered by any of the category given in Bhajanlal (supra), and prima facie the complaint discloses commission of offence by the petitioners, therefore, no case is made out for exercising powers under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. These petitions are devoid of any merits hence are dismissed. A copy of this order be retained in the record of M.Cr.C.No.9416/2014 and M.Cr.C.No.9668/2012.
The petitioners (Smt. Seema Sharma wife of Umesh Sharma, Smt. Seema Sharma wife of Prashant and Dinesh son of Kailash Sharma) of M.Cr.C.No.3710/2014, M.Cr.C.No.9416/2014 and M.Cr.C.No.9668/2012, challenged the said order by filing Special Leave to Appeal before the Apex court. The Hon''ble Supreme Court by order dated 8.3.2016, dismissed the appeal and upheld the order passed by the High court on 27.2.2015. Order dated 8.3.2016, passed by the Apex court reads as under :- "Application for exemption from filing official translation is allowed.
Permission to place additional documents on record is granted.
Delay condoned.
We are not inclined to interfere. However, we make it clear that the observations of the High court as recorded in the impugned order will not influence the trial.
The special leave petition is disposed of in the above terms."
Before the trial court an application has been filed by the respondents No.3 & 4 - Smt. Seema wife of Prashant, Smt. Seema wife of Umesh Sharma under Section 227 of Cr.P.C., read with Section 193 of Cr.P.C., on 29.9.2015 for their discharge. The respondent No.6 - Anurag Shukla, filed application under Section 173 (8) of Cr.P.C., on 29.9.2015, respondent No.1 - Subodh Mishra filed an application under Section 173 (8) read with Section 159 and 319 of Cr.P.C and under Section 300 of Cr.P.C. on 8.10.2015, on the ground that Smt. Seema Sharma wife of Prashant and Smt. Seema Sharma wife of Umesh Sharma, purchased the area of Survey No.15/12 by registered sale deed dated 19.10.2010 from Anurag Shukla. The agreement between complainant Rakesh Vyas dated 1.3.2009 and renewal agreement dated 31.8.2009, were in respect of survey No.15/1, which was originally owned by Jeevan Lal. The agreement does not bear signature of respondent No.6 Anuragh Shukla.
The police during investigation has not investigated the signatures by state examiner handwriting expert. Investigation done by the investigation officer was faulty. The land on which the agreement was executed is not owned by respondent No.6 Anurag Shukla and no prima facie case is made out against them and prayed that they may discharge from the offence. The trial court by impugned order dated 20.11.2015, discharged the respondents from the offence under Sections 294, 506, 118, 167, 296, 201, 212, 218, 384, 465, 467, 468, 469 and 471, IPC and framed the charges against them under Section 420, 420 read with Section 120-B, 119 and 120, IPC. Para 16, 19, 20, 21, 27, 32 and 34 of order dated 20.11.2015 are relevant which reads as under :- "VERNACULAR MATTER OMITTED"
This order has been challenged by the complainant on the ground that the respondents prepared forged documents and obtained loan from the bank in the name of said disputed land. They entered into the conspiracy and prepared power of attorney and transferred the land to the near relatives. Subodh Mishra is the main culprit and entered into the conspiracy with other co-accused persons. At that time, Dinesh Sharma, who is the in-charge officer at police Chowki Salakhedi has sent a forged report before the lower court. The lower court has not properly seen the document collected by the prosecution in the charge-sheet.
The main ground of challenge is that once the order has been upheld by the Apex court and High court, the learned Special Judge has no power to interfere the order and discharge them under Sections 294, 506, 118, 167, 196, 201, 212, 218, 384, 465, 467, 468, 469 and 471, IPC and prayed that the impugned order be set aside.
In reply, Shri S.K. Vyas, learned Senior counsel with G. Chouhan, Advocate for the respondent No.5, has submitted that at the time of passing of order dated 27.9.2015 in 482 Cr.P.C, proceedings only FIR was registered. After investigation of Investigating Officer completed, the charge-sheet was filed. From the charge sheet, the learned Special Judge came to the conclusion that there was no forgery and, therefore, discharge them from the aforesaid charges. The learned Senior counsel has also drawn my attention to field book of Survey No.15 of village Salakhedi of the year 1990 and submits that at that relevant point of time, Survey No.15/1, area 0.190 was owned by Smt. Anita wife of Kamlesh Agrawal, and Smt.Kavita wife of Amit Agrawal and Survey No.15/12 area 0.90 was owned by Anurag son of Ahok Shukla. It is also submitted that Anurag Shukla was not party to the proceedings of three M.Cr.C''s. Of which order dated 27.2.2015 was passed and, therefore, the same was not binding on him. He has also drawn my attention to agreement dated 1.3.2009, between Anurag Shukla and Rakesh Vyas, which is in respect of Survey No.15/1, part area 0.09 hectares. Renewal agreement dated 31.8.2009, between Subodh Mishra for himself and attorney of Shri Anurag Shukla and complainant Rakesh Vyas. Para 1 of the agreement reads as under :- "VERNACULAR MATTER OMITTED"
The registered sale deed was executed on 1.6.2011, between Anurag Shukla and Smt. Sunita wife of Subodh Mishra, Smt. Seema Sharma, wife of Prashant Sharma and Smt. Seema Sharma, wife of Umesh Sharma. Relevant part of agreement reads as under :- "VERNACULAR MATTER OMITTED"
As per charge sheet, I.O. given the following finding against the respondents - Dinesh Sharma, Subodh Mishra, Vishnudatt Dubey, Anurag Shukla, Sunita wife of Subodh Mishra, Smt. Seema wife of Prashant Niwas and Smt. Seema wife of Umesh Sharma :- "VERNACULAR MATTER OMITTED"
Shri P.K. Saxena, learned Senior Advocate for the applicant submits that in view of the categorical finding recorded by this court in 482 Cr.P.C. proceedings on 27.2.2015, the learned trial court should not have passed the impugned order because all the grounds were considered at that relevant point of time by this court and, thereafter, the finding was recorded and the same has been upheld by the Apex court and, therefore, the trial court has acceded his jurisdiction and acted illegally and committed material irregularity in passing the impugned order and prayed that M.Cr.C.No.4396/2016, be allowed.
In the case of Hardip Singh & Others V/s. State of Punjab & Others, reported as AIR 2014 SC 1400, the Hon''ble Apex court has held that ''trial'' means determination of issues adjudging the guilt or the innocence of a person, the person has to be aware of what is the case against him and it is only at the stage of framing of the charges that the court informs him of the same, the ''trial'' commences only on charges being framed.
Recently, the Apex court in the case of State of Rajasthan V/s. Fathekaran Mehdu, reported as JT 2017 (2) SC 98 has held that at the stage of framing of the charge the court is concerned not with the proof of the allegation rather it has to focus on the material and form an opinion whether there is strong suspicion that the accused has committed an offence, which if put to trial, could prove his guilt. A framing of charge is not a stage at which stage final test of guilt is to be applied. The power of quashing criminal proceeding, particularly at the stage of 228 should exercised very sparingly and with circumspection and that too in the rarest of rare cases.
On due consideration of the aforesaid, so also the fact that once that the order passed by this court on 27.2.2015 has been upheld by Hon''ble the Supreme Court on 8.3.2016, the learned trial court acted illegally with material irregularity in discharging the respondents from an offence punishable under Sections 294, 506, 118, 167, 196, 201, 212, 218, 384, 465, 467, 468, 469 and 471, IPC.
In the result, Criminal Revision No.1643/2015, is allowed. The impugned order dated 20.11.2015 passed by the learned Special Judge, Ratlam, Distt. Ratlam in S.T. No.144/2015 is set aside. The learned judge may proceed with the trial in accordance with law, expeditiously.