The defense of the accused cannot be put forth at the stage of framing of charge, and the power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. should be used sparingly to prevent abuse of the process of any court.

JUDGMENT :

Sri S.K. Mishra, J.

By filing this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as “Cr.P.C.” for brevity), the petitioners have prayed to quash the charge-sheet No.110 of 2018 dated 10.06.2018, and the order of cognizance/summoning dated 19.07.2018, passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First, Dehradun, in Criminal Case No.3502 of 2018, under Sections 420, 504 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as “the Code” for brevity).

2. Brief facts of the case are that the complainant, respondent No.2 in this petition, had supplied certain material to the petitioners. It is his allegation in the FIR that the petitioners did not pay the price of the same, and kept deferring the payment on the pretext that they have to receive certain money from the Uttar Pradesh Rajkiya Nirman Nigam (hereinafter referred to as “Nigam” for short), and only after receiving their dues from the Nigam, they shall pay the amount to the complainant. However, the complainant inquired from the Nigam, and came to know that a very non-substantial amount, approximately Rs.2.00 Lakh, was due to the petitioners, which was paid to them. On such information, the complainant went to the office of the petitioners, and confronted. On such an event, the petitioners abused him, and threatened him. Therefore, he lodged the FIR. The police took up the investigation, and after completion of the same, filed the charge-sheet against the petitioners.

3. Mr. Shiv Bhatt, the learned counsel for the petitioners, would argue that this is a civil dispute and, prima facie, it is not shown by the complainant that from the inception, i.e. from the date the petitioners placed orders with the complainant, they had an intention of defrauding the complainant by receiving material from him, and not paying the amount due to him. However, it is apparent from the record that in the FIR itself, the complainant has mentioned that from the very inception, the petitioners have the intention to defraud him.

4. Thereafter, the learned counsel took the Court to certain documents, and argued that there is no malafide on the part of the petitioners, and that the complainant did not come to the Court with clean hands. However, it is apparent from the records that in an application filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., the documents filed by the accused person before the Court cannot be taken into consideration. In this connection, this Court takes into consideration of reported judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of “State of Orissa vs. Debendra Nath Padhi, (2005) 1 SCC 568”, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that at the time of framing the charge, or taking the cognizance, the accused has no right to produce any material to prove his innocence. No provision in the Code grants to the accused any right to file any material or document at the stage of framing of charge. That right is granted only at the stage of the trial. The Hon’ble Supreme Court after relying upon the case of “Satish Mehra vs. Delhi Administration, (1996) 6 SCC 766”, has further held that the trial court has power to consider even materials which the accused may produce at the stage of Section 227 of the Code has not been correctly decided. It is well-settled by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that at the stage of framing of charge, the defence of the accused cannot be put forth. The acceptance of the contention of the learned counsel for the accused would mean permitting the accused to adduce his defence at the stage of framing of charge and for examination thereof at that stage which is against the criminal jurisprudence.

5. The reported case involved the case against a high official of the State of Orissa, who filed an application in a criminal case pending against him under Section 227 of the Code to discharge him. Thereafter, on rejection is prayer, he filed an application before the High Court of Orissa, which was allowed, and then the