The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of evaluating evidence to determine the prima facie case against the accused and the principles for framing charges under Section 227 and 228 of the Cr.P.C.

JUDGMENT

Rajeev Kumar Dubey, J. - This criminal revision has been filed under Section 397/401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the order dated 31.05.2013 passed by learned XIth ASJ, Bhopal in S.T. No. 179/2012 whereby learned ASJ, Bhopal framed charge against the applicant / accused for the offence punishable under Section 467, 468 and 420 of IPC.

2. Brief facts of the case which are relevant for disposal of this criminal revision are that respondent No.2 / complainant Inder Kumar Matani lodged a written complaint before CSP Bhopal averring that a dispute was going on between applicant Ajay and him regarding shop No. 58 located at Teen Shade, South T.T. Nagar, Bhopal and a criminal case was also pending before the court regarding the said dispute. Complainant sold that shop to Vasudev 1 year prior to the filing of the complaint and since then Vasudev was in possession of that shop and was running auto parts business in that shop. In the night of 21.01.1999, the applicant/accused tried to take possession of that shop. Regarding that incident, complainant's brother Kishan Chand lodged a report at P.S. T.T. Nagar Bhopal. On that report, police registered crime No. 58/99 for the offence punishable under Section 448 and 511 IPC. It is further averred that applicant Ajay Pandey prepared a fake agreement dated 20.01.1999 in which it is mentioned that the complainant has relinquished all his rights regarding the said shop and handed over the possession of the shop to the applicant. He also made a fake signature of the complainant on that agreement. On that complaint, police registered Crime No. 692/1999 at P.S. T.T. Nagar, Bhopal for the offence punishable under Section 420, 467 and 468 of IPC and investigated the matter. During investigation, the questioned agreement was sent by the police for examination. The State examiner of questioned document Shri K.K. Sahukar examined the questioned agreement and gave the report that the signature on the disputed agreement was of the complainant. On that police filed a closure report in the crime before the CJM Bhopal. Learned CJM vide order dated 16/08/2001, directed to the police to get a second opinion from another handwriting expert regarding the signature of the complainant on the questioned agreement and to further investigate the matter. On that police again sent the questioned agreement for examination. The second time Shri R.C. Sharma, the Additional State Examiner of the questioned document examined the document and gave the same report. The complainant objected to that report and filed a private complaint against the applicant and argued before the court that the specimen signatures sent by the police for comparison were not of the complainant. The police in connivance with the applicant, sent applicant's specimen signature for comparison, so the reports of handwriting experts presented by the police cannot be acted upon and also prayed to the court to send the questioned document for examination to another expert. Learned ACJM Bhopal allowed that application and directed that on payment of the requisite fee by the complainant the questioned agreement will be sent to another handwriting expert for examination. However, the agreement was not sent for further examination, because the complainant did not deposit the requisite fee. Meanwhile, vide order dated 16/04/2009 learned ACJM recorded the statement of complainant under Section 200 of Cr.P.C. and vide order dated 18/05/2009 took cognizance against the applicant for the offences punishable under Section 420, 467 and 468 of IPC and registered the complaint as criminal case No.8348/2009 and committed the case to the court of Sessions vide order dated 10/02/2012. On that S.T. No. 179/2012 was registered.

3. During the trial of the Sessions Case applicant filed an application averring that during investigation police got the questioned agreement examined from the State Examiner handwriting expert Shri K.K. Sahukar and on the bas