The importance of establishing a prima facie case and the limitations of the judge's role in weighing evidence at the stage of framing charges.

Subhash Kakade, J.

1. This revision under Section 397/401 of Cr.P.C. has been filed against the order dated 14.08.2014, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Deosar, District Singrauli, Headquarter Waidhan, in Sessions Trial No. 111/2013, framing the charges against the applicants for the offences punishable under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468 and 471, IPC.

2. Brief facts of the case are that on 08.06.2012 Smt. Jagmatiya Kohar lodged a complaint before the Police Station Sarai, District Singrauli, alleging that on 26.11.2011 the applicants committed fraud with him by preparing a registered sale-deed in respect of agricultural land owned by her with the help of other persons, who are Engineer and Secretary, assures her to pay compensation and fraudulently obtained signature on the sale-deed. After completion of due investigation the applicants were charge-sheeted.

3. After committal proceeding learned trial Court by the impugned order have been framed aforesaid charges against the applicants, which are challenged by this revision.

4. Shri Abdhesh Kumar Gupta, learned counsel appearing for the applicants submits that FIR lodged against the applicants after delay of 8 months, which is fatal. It is pointed out that the statement of Rajendra Sengar, Public Servant before whom document Annexure A-1 was filed for registration does not state any thing against the applicants. It is further submitted that the dispute between the parties are of civil nature and in support of it copy of the plaint also filed which was presented by the complainant Smt. Jagmatiya Kohar herself in the Court of learned II Civil Judge Class-II, Deosar, District Singrauli which was registered as Civil Suit No. 10-A/2013 Jagmatoya Vs. Govind Das and others. On the aforesaid grounds, learned counsel for the applicants prayed that the impugned order be quashed and the applicants be discharged from the charges as mentioned above.

5. Shri Akhilendra Singh, learned Panel Lawyer appearing for the respondent-State vehemently opposed above mentioned submissions and on the strength of the statements of prosecution witnesses complainant Smt. Jagmatiya Kohar, her son Ramvilas and brother Ram Prasad pointed out that the case is not only related with offence punishable under Section 420, 467, 468 and 471, IPC but the case is also related with the offence of impersonation punishable under Section 419, IPC.

6. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and also going through the entire record, this Court is of the view that this revision deserves to be dismissed.

7. In Union of India vs. Pafulla Kumar Samal, (1979) 3 SCC 4, the scope of section 227 of the Code was considered. After adverting to various decisions, the Apex Court enumerated the following principles:

"(1) That the Judge while considering the question of framing the charges under section 227 of the Code has the undoubted power to sift and weigh the evidence for the limited purpose of finding out whether or not a prima facie case against the accused has been made out:

(2) Where the materials placed before the Court disclose grave suspicion against the accused which has not been properly explained the Court will be, fully justified in framing a charge and proceeding with the trial.

(3) The test to determine a prima facie case would naturally depend upon the facts of each case and it is difficult to lay down a rule of universal application. By and large however if two views are equally possible and the Judge is satisfied that the evidence produced before him while giving rise to some suspicion but not grave suspicion against the accused, he will be fully within his right to discharge the accused.

(4) That in exercising his jurisdiction under section 227 of the Code the Judge which under the present Code is a senior and experienced Judge cannot act merely as a Post office or a mouth-piece of the prosecution, but has to consider the broad probabilities of the case, the total effect of the evidence and the docume