Claims of financial misconduct made after significant delays raise doubts about their legitimacy, especially in domestic disputes.

ORDER :

Subodh Abhyankar, J.

1. This order shall also govern the disposal of Criminal Revision Nos. 3036/2023 and 142/2023 as both the revisions have arisen out of the order dated 19-10-2022 of framing of charges under sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 409, 201 and 120-B of the INDIAN PENAL CODE in connection with offence relating to FIR bearing Crime No. 438/2021 registered at P. S. Kanwan, District Dhar (M. P.), which was lodged on 16-8-2021, in respect of the incident which took place on 13-1-2014.

2. In brief, the story of the prosecution is that the petitioner Raghvendra Kumar Sinha happens to be the husband of the complainant Binita Kumari, as their marriage was solemnized in the year 2009, when both of them were working in the Bank of India. In her FIR dated 16-8-2021 it is alleged by the complainant wife that on 13-1-2014, a sum of Rs. 60,000/- was illegally debited from her account and credited into the account of the petitioner. After investigation, the charge-sheet was filed, and charges have been framed by the trial Court as aforesaid. So far as the petitioner Gokul Chand Meena is concerned, the only charge framed against him is under section 120-B of INDIAN PENAL CODE .

3. The following charges have been framed against the petitioner Raghvendra Kumar Sinha on 19-10-2022 :—

4. Following charge has been framed against petitioner Gokul Chand Meena :—

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the dispute arose between the petitioner/husband and his wife Binita Kumari Sinha, the complainant, in the year 2014 itself, and the complainant has already lodged two criminal cases against the petitioner, one under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, and another section 498-A of INDIAN PENAL CODE , and the third one is the present case, whereas, the petitioner had also filed an application under section 9 of the HINDU MARRIAGE ACT , but the same was withdrawn, and subsequently a case for divorce under section 13 of the HINDU MARRIAGE ACT has been filed. It is further submitted that the petitioners have been falsely implicated in the case, and it is a clear case of an afterthought, as in the FIR there is no reason assigned for lodging the complaint after a lapse of seven years and seven months. It is also submitted that in the charge-sheet, the only document relied upon by the prosecution is the authority letter filed along with charge-sheet at page No. 20, and the debit voucher dated 13-1-2014 from which, the amount has been transferred.

6. Counsel for the petitioner has not denied that amount was credited in the account of the petitioner from the account of the complainant, however, it is submitted that the aforesaid transaction was in respect of purchasing a Maruti Car by the petitioner. The documents in this regard have also been filed on record, that on the same day, i.e. on 13-1-2014, when the offence is alleged to have been committed, a loan of Rs. 4,47,000/- was also sanctioned to the petitioner on which the complainant wife had also signed as the Guarantor. It is submitted that it is well within the knowledge of the complainant that the aforesaid amount was transferred from her account to the account of the petitioner for the aforesaid transaction of loan, obtained to purchase a car for them, as her account was already having the SMS facility It is also submitted that the original document of the authority letter from which the complainant had allowed the aforesaid sum of Rs. 60,000/- to be credited in her husband’s account is not available and thus, only on the basis of the photocopy of the same, coupled with the debit voucher, no offe