Back
2024 Supreme(Online)(MP) 24604
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANIL VERMA, J
Jitendra – Appellant
Versus
The State Of Madhya Pradesh – Respondent
CRR 3078/2023
Sagar Prajapat,Advocate General
At the charge framing stage, a strong suspicion is sufficient to proceed against the accused, without requiring proof beyond reasonable doubt.
Headnote:(A) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Sections 227, 397, and 401 - Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 409 - Criminal revision against framing of charges - Petitioner accused of embezzlement while managing grocery shop during complainant's illness - Trial Court found sufficient prima facie evidence to frame charges under Section 409 - Court emphasized that at the charge framing stage, only a prima facie case needs to be established, not proof beyond reasonable doubt. (Paras 1, 4, 9, 14)
(B) Charge Framing - The court must determine if there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused based on the material available, without delving into the merits of the case. (Paras 10, 12)
(C) Judicial Mind - The judge must apply judicial reasoning to ascertain if a prima facie case exists, without acting merely as a conduit for the prosecution. (Paras 11, 13)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner was entrusted with the grocery shop during the complainant's illness and allegedly embezzled Rs.17,39,104/-. The complainant filed an FIR leading to charges under Sections 406 and 420 IPC.
Findings of Court:
The Trial Court found sufficient prima facie evidence to frame charges under Section 409 IPC, dismissing the petitioner's application for discharge.
Issues: Whether the petitioner was rightly charged under Section 409 IPC and if the evidence warranted such charges.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that a strong suspicion is sufficient for framing charges, and the judge must assess the evidence to determine if a prima facie case exists.
Result: Revision dismissed.
This criminal revision under Section 397 r/w S.401 of Cr.P.C. has been filed against the impugned order dated 20.06.2023, passed by the Fourth ASJ, Indore, in S.T. No.236/2023, thereby rejecting an application filed by the petitioner under Section 227 of the Cr.P.C. and framing charges under Section 409 of IPC.
2. The necessary facts for disposal of the present revision, in short, are that the FIR has been lodged by complainant Shekar Choudary owner of the grocery shop as sawariya trader in which the petitioner was working as salesman/agent. During Covid pandemic, the complainant was affected by corona disease and handed over the shop key and all responsibility of shop to the petitioner. Thereafter, the petitioner has embezzled total amount of Rs.17,39,104/-. Then, the complainant lodged an FIR at Police Station Bhavarkuan, District Indore. Accordingly, the offence under Sections 406 and 420 have been registered against the petitioner.
3. After completion of the investigation, chargesheet has been filed before the Trial Court and later on, the matter has been committed to the Court of Sessions and the Court has framed charge under Section 409 of IPC. The petitioner has preferred an application filed under Section 227 of CrPC before the Trial Court by stating that he has been falsely implicated in the matter, he is not an agent therefore, offence under Section 409 of CrPC is not made out against him and he should be discharged from the aforesaid charge.
4. The Trial Court, after hearing both the parties, has dismissed the application filed by the petitioner and framed charges under Section 409 of IPC. Being aggrieved by the impugned order, the petitioner has filed the present petition.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the impugned order passed by the trial Court is contrary to the law and facts on record. It is based only on the conjectures and surmises. The petitioner was not a Government Servant. He never worked as an agent in the said grocery shop. The petitioner was not the owner of the aforesaid shop. Prosecution has filed mutual agreement between the complainant and the petitioner alongwith the chargesheet. As per the agreement, the petition worked as Manager in the Sawariya Traders from last three years wherein in the FIR, the complainant said petitioner worked as servant in the shop. No offence under Sections 406 and 420 is made out against him. The impugned order passed by the trial court is bad in law. Hence, he prays that the impugned order be set aside and the petitioner be discharged from all the charges.
6. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent/State opposes the prayer by submitting that on the basis of the prima facie evidence available on record, trial court has rightly framed the charges and rejected the application filed by the petitioner. Therefore, no interference is required in the instant case.
7. Learned counsel for both the parties heard at length and perused the record.
8. If the facts of the present case are considered, then it prima facie appears that the complainant who is allegedly the owner of the shop has handed over the shop key and all responsibilities of the shop to the petitioner as he was affected by Corona disease. The aforesaid all the facts have been duly mentioned in the FIR and corroborated by the statements of other witnesses recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C.
9. Prima facie for the purpose of framing of charge, this Court is of the considered opinion that there is sufficient material available on record. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Soma Chakravarty Vs. State (Th. CBI) reported in 2007 AIR SCW 3683 has held as under:-
- “20. It may be mentioned that the settled legal position, as mentioned in the above decisions, is that if on the basis of material on record the Court could form an opinion that the accused might have committed offence it can frame the charge, though for conviction the conclusion is required to be proved beyond reasonable doubt that
