Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2024 Supreme(Gau) 849

IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE MITALI THAKURIA, J.
Shyam Sundar Rasiwasia S/o. Lt. Gopiram Rasiwasia - Petitioner
Versus
The State Of Assam, Rep. by The PP, Assam And Anr. – Respondents
Crl. Rev.P. No.537 Of 2023
Decided On : 21-06-2024

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Mr. S. Chamaria.
For the Respondents: Mr. D. Das, Addl. PP, Assam, Mr. A. K. Bhuyan.

IMPORTANT POINT
The primary legal principle established is that the framing of charges requires only a prima facie case to be established, and the court should not delve into the merits of the evidence at this stage.

Headnote:
CRIMINAL LAW - CHARGES OF FORGERY AND CONSPIRACY - Sections 120(B), 420, 468, 471 of IPC; Sections 397, 401, 482 of Cr.P.C. - The court discussed the legal provisions regarding the framing of charges under the IPC, emphasizing the necessity of a prima facie case. It interpreted the requirements for establishing forgery and conspiracy, concluding that the trial court had sufficient grounds to frame charges against the petitioner based on the evidence presented. The court highlighted the limited scope of revisional jurisdiction, affirming the trial court's decision as lawful and justified.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, along with another individual, was accused of fraudulently claiming ownership of a property through a forged power of attorney. The respondent, the property owner, filed an FIR alleging conspiracy and forgery after discovering the fraudulent document. The trial court framed charges against the petitioner under various sections of the IPC, leading to the present petition challenging the order.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the trial court had adequately considered the evidence and the statements of witnesses before framing charges. It determined that there was a prima facie case against the petitioner, and the trial court's decision was not erroneous or perverse.
Issues: Whether the trial court erred in framing charges against the petitioner under Sections 120(B) and 467 of IPC, and whether the petitioner had a valid defense against the allegations of forgery and conspiracy.
Ratio Decidendi: The court reiterated that at the stage of framing charges, the focus is on the existence of a prima facie case, not on the detailed evaluation of evidence. It emphasized that the trial court's role is to assess whether the allegations, taken as a whole, constitute an offense, and that the revisional jurisdiction should be exercised sparingly.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the petition, affirming the trial court's order to frame charges against the petitioner, concluding that there was no merit in the petition and that the trial court acted within its jurisdiction.

JUDGMENT :

(Honourable Mrs. Justice Mitali Thakuria, J.) :

Heard Mr. S. Chamaria, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. D. Das, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State respondent No. 1 and Mr. A. K. Bhuyan, learned counsel for the respondent No. 2.

2. This application filed under Section 397 of Cr.P.C. read with Sections 401/482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, praying for setting aside and quashing of the impugned Order dated 03.11.2023 passed in G.R. Case No.1407/2017 under Sections 120(B)/420/468/471 of IPC passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Tinsukia, whereby the learned Trial Court framed the charges against the present petitioner under Sections 120(B)/467 of IPC.

3. The brief facts of the case is that; the respondent No.2 is the owner and occupier of the property situated at 23/71, Punjabi Bagh West, New Delhi which comprises of land and building of 1322.22 sq. yard. The said respondent No.2 also permitted the petitioner along with one namely Mahesh Kumar Rasiwasia and their families to reside in the said property by way of permissive use. On 27.06.2017, the respondent No.2 came to know that the petitioner along with Mahesh Kumar Rasiwasia made a fraudulent claim in respect of the above-mentioned property and fabricated, manufactured and created one Irrevocable Power of Attorney dated 18.04.1982 and same was registered on 04.03.2017 in the Office of Sr. Sub-Registrar, Tinsukia with an intention to unlawfully grab the said property. Thereafter, the respondent No.2 lodged an FIR against the present petitioner and the other co-accused before the Officer-in-Charge, Tinsukia on 03.07.2017 which was registered on 12.07.2017 vide Tinsukia P.S. Case No. 835/2017 under Sections 120(B)/420/468/471 of IPC and the investigation was started accordingly.

4. During the course of investigation, the certified copy of the Irrevocable Power of Attorney dated 18.04.1982 was seized by the investigation officer. Further, the I.O. also recorded the statement of the complainant and other witnesses and finding materials against the present petitioner, the charge-sheet was filed vide C.S. No.575/2017 dated 02.12.2017. In the meantime, the respondent No.2 also filed an application before the learned Trial Court to send down the case for further investigation as the police failed to investigate the same, but, the petitioner’s side raised objection stating that no prayer has been made by the I.O for further investigation and thus, there is no scope left for sending the case for further investigation and thereby, the learned Trial Court after hearing both the parties at length rejected the prayer made by the respondent No.2 vide order dated 20.04.2019. Thereafter, upon perusal of the said charge-sheet and the written submissions submitted by the respondent No.2, the learned Trial Court framed the charges against the petitioner under Sections 120(B)/467 of IPC vide its impugned order dated 03.11.2023 passed in G.R. Case No.1407/2017.

5. On being dissatisfied and aggrieved by the impugned order dated 03.11.2023 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Tinsukia in G.R. Case No.1407/2017, the petitioner preferred the instant petition under Section 397 read with Sections 401/482 of Cr.P.C., praying for setting aside and quashing of the aforesaid impugned order.

6. Mr. Chamaria, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the learned Trial Court failed to consider the substantial issue i.e. “Registration of Deed” which is permissible under the law itself and for registration of such deed of power of attorney, it cannot be said that the person has committed an offence herein, more particularly the issue of ‘forgery of document’. He further submitted that the law regarding framing of charges is well settled and it is permissible for the Trial Judge to sift and weigh the evidence for a limited purpose for finding out whether there is a prima facie case against the accused/petitioner has