Point of Law: Section 227 of the Code runs Discharge - If, upon consideration of the record of the case and the documents submitted therewith, and after hearing the submissions of the accused and the prosecution in this behalf, the Judge considers that there is not sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused, he shall discharge the accused and record his reasons for so doing.

Headnote:
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 482, 397, 401, 161, 227, 228, 309(1) – Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 468/471/467/34 - Transfer Shares - False Signature - Forgery With Their Organization - Tapan Kaushik of Anand Rathi Financial Service Ltd. lodged one F.I.R. with Police Station, alleging inter alia amongst others that Raju Dutta had committed forgery with their organization through false signature on a false DI slip, which has been used by him to transfer 992 shares of ONGC, from demate Account of Mr. Sanjoy Lahoty, with Anand Rathi Financial Services Ltd. in to his own demat Account via DI Slip. Para 9
Finding of the Court :
Opening of a Saving Account in ICICI Bank, in name of accused who was working in his office as Peon, and who studied up to Class VI, by giving him Rs, 10,000/- and opening of Demate Account against said Saving Account and keeping cheque books with him and with his signatures and calling him to a cloth store of Sivsagar and asking him to practice writing of name of Sanjoy Lahoty through Manager of said store, and subsequent transfer of 992 shares of Sanjoy Lahoty to Demate Account of Raju Dutta and subsequent online selling of same and withdrawal of entire sale proceeds, amounting Rs. 9,58,509.89, from account of Raju Dutta and subsequent closing of office and business, not only discloses grave suspicion against petitioner, which have not been properly explained, but also reveals deep rooted and well planned conspiracy, and as such learned Court below is fully justified in framing charges and proceeding with trial against petitioner along with accused - No interference in order of trial Court is called for, as no glaring injustice is staring in its face, as held by Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Mansukhbhai Kanjibhai Shah (supra) - In light of the principles, discussed herein above, while facts and circumstances emerged from FIR, Charge Sheet, Seizure List and from materials collected during investigation, and also submissions of learned Advocates of both sides are considered, submissions so advanced by Mr. More, learned counsel for petitioner, left this court unimpressed - And accordingly, Court is unable to record concurrence with same - Since more than nine years elapsed from date of framing of charges, Court would like to request learned court below to endeavour to dispose of case within a reasonable time, if necessary by taking recourse to Section 309(1) Cr.P.C - Registry shall send down LCR, to learned court below, by a special messenger with a copy of this judgment and order.
Result: Petition dismissed.

JUDGMENT :

ROBIN PHUKAN, J.

1. Heard Mr. M. More, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. P. Borthakur, learned Addl. P.P. for the respondent No. 1, i.e. State of Assam and Mr. S. Suncheti, learned counsel for the private respondent.

2. This petition, under Section 482 read with section 397/401 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 is preferred by Shri Rakesh Karwa for quashing the Charge Sheet No. 523, dated 25.11.2012 under section 468/471 IPC and the FIR of Jorhat P.S. Case No. 148/2010, dated 09.03.2010 and the entire proceeding of G.R. Case No. 268/2010, so far it relates to the petitioner is concerned, pending in the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jorhat and the impugned order, dated 08.10.2013, passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jorhat, whereby the learned court below had framed charge under section 468/471/467/34 IPC.

3. The factual background, leading to filing of the present petition, is briefly stated as under:

“On 09.03.2010, one Tapan Kaushik of Anand Rathi Financial Service Ltd. lodged one F.I.R. with the Jorhat Police Station, alleging inter alia amongst others that one Raju Dutta of Rowriah, Jorhat had committed forgery with their organization through false signature of Mr. Sanjoy Lahoty, on a false DI slip, which has been used by him to transfer 992 shares of ONGC, of worth Rs. 10,00,000/- from the demate Account of Mr. Sanjoy Lahoty, No. 1201060000248894, with Anand Rathi Financial Services Ltd. in to his own demat Account No. 44505202 having D.P. ID IN 302902 (ICICI Bank, Jorhat) via DI Slip No. 887872, dated 21.07.2008. He had send DI Slip through courier from Jorhat to their regional office and the same was executed in their regional office - Anand Rathi Financial Services Ltd. Kolkata. The case came to the notice of the Regional Office, Kolkata when the client complained about the missing of the share from his account as on 29.12.2008, and after receiving instruction from the Branch Office at Guwahati, the FIR has been lodged. Upon the said FIR, the officer-in-Charge, Jorhat Police Station had registered a case, being Jorhat P.S. case No. 148/2010 under sections 468/471 IPC, and endorsed S.I. Nayan Tamuli to investigate the same. The I.O. then visited the place of occurrence, examined the witnesses and arrested accused Raju Dutta and Rakesh Karowa (present petitioner) and forwarded them to the court. Then on completion of investigation the I.O. laid charge sheet against the accused Raju Dutta and Rakesh Karowa to stand trial, under section 468/471 IPC, before the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jorhat. Then the learned court below, complying the provision of section 207 Cr.P.C. and after hearing learned Advocates of both side, had framed charge against both the accused under section 468/471/467/34 IPC and on being read and explained over the same to the accused persons they pleaded not guilty to the same. Thereafter, the learned court below had posted the case for evidence.”

4. Being highly aggrieved, the petitioner/accused Shri Rakesh Karowa has preferred the present petition on the following grounds:

(i) That, the FIR, the Charge-Sheet and the documents seized in the case, even if taken on their face value and accepted in its entirety, do not disclose commission of any offence under section 468/471 IPC, by the petitioner.

(ii) That, none of the witnesses examined by the I.O. have ever made any accusation/whisper against the petitioner and the charge sheet was filed against him without applying mind.

(iii) That, there is no elements to constitute any of the ingredients of the offences under section 468/471 IPC against the petitioner.

(iv) That, no incriminating documents have been recovered from the possession of the petitioner or in the name of the petitioner.

(v) That, the FIR and the charge sheet is altogether silent about involvement of the petitioner and the learned court below had without considering the materials on record and without applying judicial mind an