The court ruled that sufficient prima facie evidence exists to frame charges against the applicant, emphasizing the standard for charge framing avoids detailed inquiry into case merits.

ORDER

(28.10.2021)

This revision petition under Section 397/401 Cr.P.C. has been preferred by the applicants being aggrieved by the order dated 25.04.2018 in S.T.No.73/2017 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Pawai, District-Panna, whereby the learned ASJ has framed the charges against the applicants for the offences punishable under Sections 467 /34, 468/34, 471/34, 420/34 and 120-B of the IPC .

2. According to prosecution case, complainant-Gulab Lodhi has filed a written complaint before the concerning Police Station stating therein that on 19.03.2015, he came to knowledge that one Lappu Lal, who residing in the same village of the complainant, has prepared forged documents in the name of complainant for taking KCC loan and also withdrew the amount of Rs.94,500/-out of Rs.98,000/-as sanctioned. Actually, before two years, Lappu Lodhi came to the complainant and took his patta to add the name of his grand-daughter in the scheme of Ladli Laxmi Yojna. After 8 days, Lappu has returned the said patta to the complainant. After that, when Bank officials reached in the house of complainant then he knew that Lodhi along with Branch Manager and other staffs of the concerning Bank are involved in cheating with the complainant by making forged documents and also withdrew the amount of Rs.94,500/-. It is also alleged that present applicant and other co-accused have actively participated in the alleged offences. After filing challan, learned Sessions Judge has framed the charges against the present applicant for the offences punishable under Sections 467 /34, 468/34, 471/34, 420/34 and 120-B of the IPC .

3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that present applicant has been falsely implicated in the case as he is Branch Manager of the State Bank of India and did not play any specific role in the alleged crime. He did all the work with due diligence and in accordance with the rules. On reading of FIR, no offence is made out against the present applicant. The learned Sessions Judge has erroneously recorded the finding against the applicant. There is no material to show that the present applicant has committed cheating and forgery with the complainant. The learned Sessions Judge has committed grave error in appreciating the whole factual scenario for framing the charges against the applicant. The framing of charges is a very serious step in Criminal Trial which affects the personal liberty of applicant, this should not be lightly done. The charges should be framed only if there is sufficient material available on record against the applicant towards his guilt. The name of the present applicant is not mentioned in the FIR. However, the FIR is against the Branch Manager but branch detail is not mentioned thereupon. Learned trial Court has failed to appreciate that neither any documents are taken by the applicant from any of the complainants nor prepared any forged documents in their names. There is no specific allegation against the present applicant. There is no allegation against the present applicant in respect of any transaction. The amount was paid in the account of the concerned beneficiary. The offence was committed by one Anand Pyasi. After taking loan from the bank, false allegations are made to avoid recovery of the borrowed amount. The applicant has no role in the alleged crime. Therefore, the charges framed by the learned Sessions Court is not proper and deserves to be quashed.

4. On the other hand, learned P.L. for the respondent/State opposes the same submitting that at the stage of framing of charges, deep merits of the case may not be considered. He further submits that documents available in the charge-sheet are sufficient to show that prima facie, o