IMPORTANT POINT
The court ruled that the trial court properly dismissed the discharge application, finding sufficient evidence to frame charges against the accused for financial fraud.

JUDGMENT :

The present criminal revision petition is preferred under Section 397 read with Section 401 and Section 482, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [‘the Code’ or ‘CrPC’, for short] and Article 227 of the Constitution of India by the petitioner, being aggrieved by dismissal of her application, I.A. no. 181 of 2023 preferred under Section 239, CrPC by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Kohima by an Order dated 07.12.2023.

2. The petitioner who has been charge-sheeted as an accused, B-5 in G.R. Case no. 80 of 2016, arising out of State Crime Police Station Case no. 1 of 2016, preferred the application, I.A. no. 181 of 2023 under Section 239, CrPC seeking her discharge as an accused, B-5 in G.R. Case no. 80 of 2016. By the Order dated 07.12.2023, the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Kohima [‘the trial court’, for short] after hearing the learned counsel for the parties, dismissed the said application for discharge and thereafter, proceeded to frame charges against the petitioner as an accused, B-5 in G.R. Case no. 80 of 2016 by an Order dated 06.05.2024. By the Order dated 06.05.2024, the learned trial court framed charges against the petitioner for the offences under Sections 468/34, Indian Penal Code [IPC], Section 471/34, IPC and Section 409/34, IPC.

3. It may be stated that after registration of State Crime Police Station Case no. 1 of 2016, investigation was carried out and after completion of investigation into the case, the Investigating Officer [I.O.] of the case submitted a charge-sheet under Section 173[2], CrPC vide Charge-Sheet no. 10 dated 02.12.2021 finding a prima facie for commission of various offences, stated therein, by 16 [sixteen] nos. of accused, named therein as A-1, A-2, A-3, A-4, A-5, A-6, A-7, A-8 & A-9 and B-1, B-2, B-3, B-4, B-5, B-6 & B-7. The petitioner has been arraigned in the Charge-Sheet no. 10 dated 02.12.2021 as the accused, B-5. On submission of the said Charge-Sheet, the learned trial court took cognizance on it for the offences under Sections 420/120B/409/467/ 468/471, IPC on 22.08.2022.

4. Challenges have been made by the petitioner in this criminal revision petition to :- [i] the Charge-Sheet no. 10 dated 02.12.2021 in so far the petitioner as accused is concerned; [ii] the Order dated 22.08.2022 passed by the learned trial court, whereby, it took cognizance on the Charge-Sheet no. 10 dated 02.12.2021 and issued processes against the charge-sheeted accused persons in the petitioner herein as accused no. B-5; [iii] the Order dated 07.12.2023 whereby, the learned trial court rejected the prayer for discharge of the petitioner as accused no. B-5; and [iv] the Order dated 06.05.2024, whereby charges, mentioned above, have been framed against the petitioner as the accused no. B-5 by the learned trial court.

5. I have heard Mr. I. Imti Longchar, learned counsel for the petitioner; Ms. S. Mere, learned Public Prosecutor for the respondent no. 1, State of Nagaland; and Mr. N. Mozhui, learned Standing Counsel, Accountant General, Nagaland for the respondent no. 2.

6. Mr. Longchar, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner joined the State services as far back as on 27.03.1984 as a Junior Account Assistant and after serving in different capacities at various places and at various offices on being transferred and/or promoted, the petitioner retired from service as a Sub-Treasury Officer, Changtongya on 31.10.2018 on reaching the age of superannuation. It was after her retirement, the impugned Charge-Sheet no. 10 came to be laid on 02.12.2021 in connection with State Crime Police Station Case no. 1 of 2016. The FIR was registered at the instance of an official of the Office of the Accountant General, Nagaland alleging financial irregularities committed at Zunheboto District Treasury Office by fraudulent withdrawal of pensions, etc. on the basis of fabricated documents and forgery of signatures of officials of the Accountant General’s Office. The FIR indica