The judgment establishes the importance of prima facie evidence and the necessity of custodial interrogation based on credible arguments in cases involving criminal conspiracy and fabricated documents.

ORDER :

Atul Sreedharan, J.

1. This order shall govern disposal of M.Cr.C. Nos. 42339/2020 and M.Cr.C. No. 42323/2020, as both these cases arise out of the same crime number.

2. The applicants are apprehending their arrest in connection with Crime No. 513/2020, P.S. Ayodhya Nagar, Bhopal, registered for offences punishable U/s. 420, 406, 120-B, 467 and 468 of the I.P.C.

3. Learned counsel for the State has taken a preliminary objection in these cases and has submitted that the matter be listed before Hon'ble Mr. Justice A.K. Shrivastava, as the cases were extensively argued before him on 09.11.2020. However, on perusing the order sheet of 09.11.2020, it does not appear that the case had been argued in detail before the co-ordinate bench and neither is the case made over to any particular bench. It is also not the case that co-ordinate bench has passed an order for or against any of the co-accused persons, or that he has passed an interim order in these applications, on account of which, the matter be sent before the same learned Judge. Subsequently, these cases were listed before other Hon'ble Judges on 18.11.2020, 25.11.2020, 02.12.2020, 22.12.2020 and 04.01.2021. On all these occasions, never once has the State made such a prayer that the cases be listed before Hon'ble Mr. Justice A.K. Shrivastava itself, as it was extensively heard by him. Learned counsel for the State has also submitted that on the previous occasions, he has not made such a prayer, as on each of those occasions, the case was adjourned at the behest of the applicants herein. However, the order dated 02.12.2020 reflects that the prayer for adjournment was strongly opposed by the learned counsel for the Objectors on the ground that the applicants' counsel was repeatedly seeking time and not arguing the cases. The Ld. Co-ordinate Bench, considering the submissions from both sides, adjourned the cases by observing that they be listed after four weeks and if it was not argued on the next date of hearing, the matter would be decided on the basis of facts pleaded in the applications. On that date, it was open for the State to have made a submission before the Court on 02.12.2020, to list these matters before Hon'ble Mr. Justice A.K. Shrivastava, but it was not done. This prayer has been made for the first time when it has been listed before this Court. The Court takes exception to such pleas being made as it indirectly casts an aspersion on the Court itself. Learned counsel for the State is requested to be more cautious in future, bearing in mind that though he may not have intended to cast an aspersion on the Court, however he being an officer of the Court must take exceptional care to ensure that no submissions are made, which by necessary implication, can be construed as casting an aspersion on the Court. At this juncture, learned counsel for the State regrets having made such a request and assured this Court that he shall henceforth take care not to make submissions that may be construed as undermining the dignity of the Court. The penitence of the learned counsel for the State appears to be genuine and the error unintentional. Therefore, this Court does not wish to proceed any further on this issue.

4. Extensive arguments have been made on behalf of the parties and it would be necessary to record and consider them. The facts are as follows. The complainant is one Sunil Saini. He lodged an F.I.R. at P.S. Ayodhya Nagar, Bhopal, against the applicants and other co-accused persons. Complainant is the proprietor of M/s. Saini Indian Gas Agency. On 21.09.2020, he received a letter from the Indian Oil Corporation Limited (for short 'IOCL') and came to know that the applicant Neha Pandey had filed an application before IOCL desiring that she be made a partner in the firm of the complainant. The application and the supporting documents are annexed to this application as Annexure A/7 from page 46 till page 82.

5. An explanation was sought by IOCL from the complainant at whic