A prima facie case for framing charges exists when there is sufficient suspicion based on evidence, emphasizing the court's role to assess rather than adjudicate guilt at the charge stage.

JUDGMENT :

Manisha Batra, J.

The present petition has been filed by the petitioner under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of order dated 23.01.2024 (Annexure P-10), whereby the criminal revision bearing number CRR-342-2019, filed by the petitioner against the order of framing charge dated 17.12.2018 (Annexure P-6) under Sections 408 and 120-B of IPC in case arising out of FIR No. 112 dated 05.06.2014, registered under the aforesaid sections at Police Station Division No. 5, Police Commissionerate Ludhiana, had been dismissed by the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana and also for quashing of order dated 06.04.2018 (Annexure P-4), whereby the petitioner had been summoned to face trial as an additional accused under Section 319 of Cr.P.C.

2. Brief facts of the case relevant for the disposal of the present case are that the aforementioned FIR was registered on the basis of a complaint lodged by complainant Suresh Sharma, Territory Head of CMS Info Systems Pvt. Ltd., which was a cash management company, whose operation involved cash filling in ATMs, cash deposit for various customers and cash operations beyond banking hours. It was based at Mumbai and was having its own vault at Ludhiana. It was alleged that due to the nature of the operations, cash amount used to be retained in the vault of the company beyond banking hours. This vault was operated by two Vault Officers. One of the vault officers informed about shortage of cash in the vault to the extent of amount of Rs. 83,84,447/-. The matter was inquired into and it was revealed that the petitioner and co-accused Amritpal Singh, who used to collect cash and then to deposit it with co-accused Amandeep Singh, hatched a conspiracy with other co-accused and embezzled the aforementioned amount. Investigation proceedings were initiated. Co-accused Amandeep Singh, Vikram Singh and Amritpal Singh were arrested. Recovery of some of the embezzled amount of money was effected from them. The petitioner was found to be innocent and had not been arrested and challaned. Challan was presented against Amritpal Singh, Vikram Singh and Manoj Kumar. Charges under Section 408 read with Section 120-B of IPC were framed against them.

3. As per the allegations, during the course of trial, the prosecution examined two witnesses, namely PW-1 Jaswinder Singh and PW-2 Suresh Sharma i.e. the complainant. Thereafter, an application under Section 319 of Cr.P.C. was moved by the prosecution, which was allowed, vide order dated 06.04.2018 and the present petitioner was arraigned as an additional accused. An application for discharge, as moved by the petitioner, was dismissed, vide order dated 14.11.2019. Charges were framed against the petitioner and co-accused on 17.12.2018. The petitioner filed the aforesaid revision as mentioned in paragraph No. 1 against the order dated 17.12.2018 which was dismissed by the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana, vide impugned order dated 23.01.2024. Feeling aggrieved, the present petition has been filed.

4. At the very outset, learned counsel for the petitioner has restricted his arguments only to the extent of quashing the order dated 17.12.2018, whereby charges were framed against him.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that on an application, moved by the brother of the petitioner, namely Jagmohan Singh, a detailed inquiry was conducted by the police and the petitioner was found to be innocent. A petition filed by respondent No. 2/complainant for including the name of the petitioner as an accuse