At the charge stage, the court must accept allegations as true based on prima facie evidence, without weighing evidence, to decide if charges should be framed.

Headnote:(A) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 482 - Indian Penal Code - Sections 379, 467, 468, and 420 - Discharge of accused in a fraud case - The application to allow representation of the complainant company was granted in light of the expansive definition of 'victim' discussed in Jagjeet Singh & Ors. vs. Ashish Mishra @ Monu & Anr. - Discharge by the learned ASJ was reversed; charges against the accused were permitted to be framed as sufficient prima facie material exists - Court emphasized that at the charge stage, the broader view of evidence must be taken and allegations of theft were substantiated by the nature of evidence and direction for further trial was issued. (Paras 3, 9, 78, 79)

(B) Criminal Procedure - Framing of Charges - The court underscored that at this stage, material should be sufficient to form a presumptive opinion about the existence of factual ingredients of the offences alleged. (Paras 18, 79)

Facts of the case:
The complainant company alleged theft of valuable documents and signed cheques by family members, leading to the registration of FIR and subsequent legal proceedings. The respondents were discharged for lack of evidence, but the complainant's appeal led to the setting aside of the discharge order.

Findings of Court:
The court found that the learned ASJ had erred in discharging the accused without recognizing prima facie evidence of the offences alleged, thus ordered the framing of charges.

Issues: The primary issues pertained to whether sufficient prima facie evidence existed at the charge stage to support the allegations of theft and forgery against the respondents.

Ratio Decidendi: The court reasoned that at the charge stage, the evidence should not be weighed and that the mere presence of suspicion was enough to frame charges, indicating the need for trial based on the presented evidence.

Result: Discharge order set aside; charges against the respondents upheld and trial to proceed.

JUDGMENT

NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA, J.

CRL.M.A. 6657/2023 in CRL.M.C. 150/2012

1. Application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the Complainant Company M/s. Jay Switches (India) Pvt. Ltd. through its Director Mr. Kunal Minda, to be given an opportunity of being heard since it is the Company, which is the actual victim in the present case.

2. It is submitted that FIR No.542/2005 under Sections 379 /467/468/ 506/420/34 IPC was registered against Respondents on Complaint pursuant to the directions of the learned MM in CC No.67/2005 filed under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. by the Petitioner M/s. Jay Switches (India) Pvt. Ltd. through its Director Mr. Purakh Chand Minda (P. C. Minda). On completion of investigation, the Chargesheet was filed against the Respondents. Sh. P. C. Minda died on 04.11.2018 and the matter on behalf of the Company was being pursued by Mr. Kunal Minda before the learned MM as well as before learned ASJ. Therefore, permission has been sought by him to represent the company in present Petitions.

3. Reliance has been placed on Jagjeet Singh & Ors. vs. Ashish Mishra @ Monu &Anr., 2022 (9) SCC 321, wherein, it was observed that the legislature has given a wide and expansive meaning to the expression ‘victim’ which means a person who has suffered any loss or injury caused by reason of the act or omission for which the accused person has been charged. The victim therefore, has a right to come forward to participate in a criminal proceeding even though the same are being undertaken on behalf of the State.

4. The Application is supported by the Board Resolution dated 12.02.2023 authorising Mr. Kunal Minda to represent the Company. The Applicant had represented the Complainant Company before the learned MM as well as before learned ASJ.

5. No formal Reply has been filed by the Respondents to this Application.

6. Considering that the complainant was M/s. Jay Switches (India) Pvt. Ltd. though was earlier represented by its Director Mr. P. C. Minda, but is being representing by Mr. Kunal Minda after the demise of Mr. P. C. Minda, he is hereby, permitted and authorised to represent the Complainant Company in the present Petition.

7. Application is accordingly, allowed and disposed of.

CRL.M.C. 150/2012 and CRL.REV.P. 408/2011

8. These two Petitions under Section 482 Cr.P.C. have been filed on behalf of the State and the Complainant Company M/s. Jay Switches (India) Pvt. Ltd. respectively, to challenge the Order dated 02.08.2011 of learned District and Sessions Judge, Delhi, who has discharged the Respondents for the offences under Sections 467 /468/34 IPC and Harish Bindal of the additional Charge under Section 379 IPC .

9. The facts in brief are that on 18.12.2003, Mr. P. C. Minda along with his son-in-law / Respondent No. 1 Harish Binal went to AL-market, Shalimar Bagh in his car bearing No.DL-8C-J04214 and went inside the market to purchase the medicines. When he returned, he found his bag containing Stamp Papers of Rs.2/-, Rs.5/-, Rs.10/- and Rs.100/-, his Passport, blanked signed cheques and other valuable documents, were missing. He got a NCR dated 18.12.2003 registered at PS: Shalimar Bagh with regard to the loss of his bag containing his valuables. The Public Notices were issued in the Newspaper on 26.12.2003 about the missing of the valuables in his bag. On 26.03.2003, he also gave intimation to his Bank regarding the missing of his cheques bearing No. 830615 and 830616 with instructions to stop the payment of the said cheques.

10. On 07.02.2005, his bank officials informed him about the presentation of the aforesaid two cheques for encashment, but on the basis of instructions given by him, the payment against the said Cheques had been stopped.

11. The Complainant then filed a Complaint before the Ld. MM on 21.03.2005. He made the allegations that the valuables and his bag got stolen by Respondent No. 1 Harish Bindal, who forged the two cheques which only had the signatures of the Complainant. One cheque bearing No. 830615 w

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2025 Supreme(Online)(Del) 3610

At the charge stage, the court must accept allegations as true based on prima facie evidence, without weighing evidence, to decide if charges should be framed.

Cases Referred (4)