Important Point
If there was no legal evidence then framing of charge would be groundless, offending Article 21 of Constitution of India.

Order

S.L. Kochar, J.— This Criminal Revision, has been preferred on behalf of the applicant against the order dated 24-2-2003 passed in Criminal Case No. 1187/01 by learned Judicial Magistrate, Class I Neemuch, thereby framing the charge for the offence punishable under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468 and 471/34 IPC against applicant.

2. The facts of the case, in brief, are that on 19th October, 2000, compl-ainant, SK Upadhyaya, Vice Principal CTC-1 C.R.P.F. Neemuch lodged a written complaint to the effect that by making forged signature, the amount of draft was withdrawn from the Bank.

On the basis of the aforesaid report, Police registered offence punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468 and 471 I.P.C. against applicant and stepped into investigation.

3. On investigation, it is found that one named K. Vishwambharan was Ex. Cook in CRPF in whose favour, bank draft was issued but on the basis of handwriting expert, one Vikramsingh has withdrawn money by making forged signatures from the bank. The Investi-gating Agency, on the report of hand writing expert, found one Yuddhveer Singh s/o Dharam Pal Singh obtained money by making forged signature in the name of Vikram Singh hatching conspiracy with co-accused Parvindar Singh S/o Harcharan Singh and fur-ther, said Parvindar Singh entered into conspiracy with his wife, present applicant Kaushalyabai, who has trans-ferred money to her father for purcha-sing tractor. As such offences have been registered against present applicant and charge-sheet has been filed.

4. Learned trial Court, after hea-ring both parties, framed charges under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468 and 471/34 IPC by the impugned order, which is under challenge.

5. Mr. Uberai, learned Sr. Coun-sel appearing for the applicant sub-mitted that applicant Kaushalya Devi is not wife of co-accused Parvinder Singh and this fact is borne out from the charge-sheet filed by the prosecution under Section 173 Cr.P.C. The applicant is the wife of Vijendrasingh Rathi. The counsel has filed certificate Annexure “C” duly issued by Deputy Comandant, CRPF Neemuch. He also putforth that only evidence against the applicant is memorandum under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, in pursuance whereof there is absolutely no recovery. According to him, even if complete material available in the charge-sheet on its face value without any rebuttal by the applicant, is accepted, no prima case is made out worth for taking cognizance much less for framing charge for the aforesaid offences. To bolster his submission, the counsel placed reliance on the judgment passed by Principal Bench of this Court in the case of Sushil Kumar Sharma v. State of M.P.1.

6. In oppugnation, Mr. Girish Desai, learned Deputy Advocate General appearing for the State, has submitted that at the stage of framing of charge, there is very limited scope to interfere in revision and there is ample material against the applicant for framing the charge, as such no illegality, irregularity or impropriety committed by the trial Court.

7. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after perusing the entire record carefully, this Court is of the opinion that contention of learned counsel for applicant finds strong support on factual and legal position. Every where in the charge-sheet, name of husband of the applicant is men-tioned as Vijendra Singh. In the memo of arrest, in the seizure-memo and in the charge-sheet there is nothing revealing the fact that applicant is the wife of Parvinder Singh, as such even if ignoring the certificate filed by the applicant, Annexure “C” by the prose-cution’s own showing applicant is the wife of Vijendra Singh. Apart from this controversy of the name of the husband, in pursuance of the statement recorded under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, there is no recovery of bank draft. As such this statement is not helpful to the prosecution. It is merely a piece of paper. No relevant facts have been discovered in pursuance thereof.

8. The next evidence is state