The court holds that at the charge-framing stage, only prima facie evidence is considered, and the accused's defence cannot be evaluated until trial, ensuring that enough grounds exist to presume an offence has been committed.

ORDER :

SANJEEV S KALGAONKAR, J.

This petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 is filed assailing the order dated 17.10.2019, passed by XXVth Additional Sessions Judge ,Indore in Sessions Trial No. 8 of 2012, whereby charges have been framed against the petitioners for the offence punishable under Section 420 read with Section 120B, Section 409 read with section 120B, Section 467 read with Section 120B, Section 468 read with section 120B and Section 471 read with section 120B of IPC. The quashing of proceedings in aforestated trial is further requested.

2. The exposition of facts in brief, giving rise to present petition, is as under:-

A. The complainant, Ravi Kumar Potdar filed a written complaint under Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure against B.K. Sarkar, the then Regional Manager, Dr. V. N. Bhargava, the then Manager and Dr. R.K. Puri, the then Deputy Manager of the Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., Regional Office, Anoopnagar, A.B. Road Indore, inter-alia alleging that the accused were serving at the Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. in year 2000. The accused in conspiracy with each other have forged the bills and embezzelled the amount towards agent training workshop. The complainant applied for details of agent training workshop under the Right to Information Act. He was informed that no such workshop was conducted by the Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. The accused No. 1, 2 and 3 had misused their offices and misappropriated the public funds.

B. The complainant examined himself as PW-1, Devendra Singh, an employee from State Bank of Indore, as PW-2, Ravindra Mundra, Accountant, Oriental Insurance Company, as PW-3, Surendra Kohali, Chief Regional Manager, Oriental Insurance Company as PW-4, Dilip Jatwa, as PW-5 and Tajindar Singh, Manager of Hotel Kanchan Tilak, as PW-6 and produced certain documents Ex.P-1 to Ex.P-12.

C. Learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Indore vide order dated 26.9.2011 took cognizance for offence punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468 and 471 read with section 120B of IPC against B.K. Sarkar, V.N. Bhargav, R.K. Puri and Tajinder Singh. B.K. Sarkar and V.N. Bhargav preferred MCRC No. 6762 of 2012 and Tajindar Singh preferred MCRC No. 3651 of 2012 (petitions under Section 482 of The Code of Criminal Procedure) feeling aggrieved by the summoning order dated 26.9.2011 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class in criminal complaint No. 26178 of 2011. However, the petitioner did not prosecute the petition and requested for liberty to raise the points before the trial court at the time of framing of charge. Accordingly, the petitions were dismissed vide orders dated 11.10.2017.

D. The Judicial Magistrate First Class, Indore committed the case for trial to the Sessions Court. Learned Sessions Judge, Indore took cognisance of the offence and heard both the parties on framing of charge. The accused B.K. Sarkar and V.N. Bhargava submitted an application under Section 227 of Cr.P.C. Learned XXVth Additional Sessions Judge, Indore rejected the application and proceeded to frame charge for offence punishable under Section 420 read with Section 120B, Section 409 read with section 120B, Section 467 read with Section 120B, Section 468 read with section 120B and Section 471 read with section 120B of IPC against the accused/petitioners vide impugned order dated 17.10.2019 passed in ST No. 8 of 2012.

3. The impugned order is assailed in the present petition on following grounds:-

A. The impugned order passed by trial court is contrary to law and facts on the record. The trial court has grossly erred in holding that the defence of accused cannot be looked into at the stage of framing of charges;

B. The allegations made against the accused in the complaint are totally falls and the documents annexed with the application for discharge under Section 227 of Cr.P.C. show that the alleged training programme was conducted and accordingly the payments were made;

C. The complainant is a