Rare and exceptional circumstances for interference in order framing charge

JUDGMENT :

RAVINDRA MAITHANI, J.

1. The challenge in this petition is made to the order dated 18.02.2020, passed in Criminal Case No. 727 of 2010, by the court of Judicial Magistrate, Nainital (for short “the case”). By which, an application for discharge filed by the petitioner has been dismissed and the court observed that there are sufficient grounds for framing charge under Sections 420, 406, 506, 120B IPC.

2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

3. The facts necessary to appreciate the controversy briefly stated are as follows: The respondent no. 2 (for short “the informant”) filed an FIR, on 25.11.2008, against the petitioner and others under Sections 420, 406, 506 IPC at Police Station Tallital, District Nainital (for short “the first FIR”). According to it, the petitioner and the co-accused on 13.06.2008, induced him to deliver Rs. 67,760/- and ensured that he would be paid Rs. 50,500/- per month for running a computer shop. But, thereafter, assured sum was not paid and when demanded, threats were extended to him. According to the FIR, the petitioner, the co-accused and others, cheated other persons also. In this FIR, after investigation, charge-sheet was filed against the petitioner and others for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 406, 506, 120-B IPC. On 15.06.2010, cognizance was taken on it, and the petitioner and the co-accused were summoned to answer the accusation. The order taking cognizance was challenged by the petitioner in Criminal Misc. Application (C-482) No. 26 of 2011, Kapil Adwetya (Pilot Baba) vs. State of Uttarakhand before this Court, which was dismissed on 06.04.2017. The Court had observed that:

“(9) The Court was taken through the contents of FIR. From a bare perusal of FIR, it is apparent that foundation of criminal offence is laid against the present applicant in the instant case. Criminal proceedings pending against him, therefore, should not be quashed. The jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. should not be exercised to stifle or scuttle the legitimate prosecution.”

4. Still aggrieved, the petitioner approached the Hon’ble Supreme Court in SLP (Criminal) No. 3864 of 2017, Kapil Adwetya (Pilot Baba) vs. State of Uttarakhand, which was dismissed on 17.05.2018. The trial of the case proceeded. At the stage of framing of charge, arguments were raised on behalf of the petitioner for discharge, but by the impugned order the court held that there are sufficient grounds to frame charge. This order is impugned herein.

5. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that it is the case in which the petitioner ought to have been discharged. He would raise the following points in his submissions:

(i) According to the prosecution case, a society was registered on 10.12.2006, but on that date the petitioner was not in India. His signatures were forged.

(ii) The petitioner has been falsely implicated in the case. On behalf of the petitioner an FIR was filed on 21.11.2017 with the averments that petitioner’s name was used by Himanshu Rai and others; the society was registered based on forged documents on the name and style of Aikawa International Educational Society. At the relevant time, the petitioner was travelling abroad; the Manager of Pilot Baba Ashram gave a complaint to the police, which was registered as FIR No. 393 of 2017, Police Station Haldwani, District Nainital (for short “the second FIR”).

(iii) After investigation in the second FIR, the police had submitted a charge-sheet. Not only this, it is argued that in the charge-sheet, the police has categorically recorded that the signatures of the petitioner were forged on the documents.

(iv) The second FIR after investigation was found true. Charge-sheet has been submitted. It, according to the learned Senior Counsel, falsify the allegations levelled against the petitioner. It is some sterling material which cannot be lost sight of at the stage of framing of the charge. It is not such a case that petitio