The court affirmed that the efficacy of framing charges relies on the existence of sufficient prima facie evidence, without requiring deep merits assessment at the initial stage.

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 Central Bank of India and did not play any specific role in the alleged crime. He did all the work 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 and the FIR is against the Branch Manager of State Bank of India which post was never held by the applicant. 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. The applicant was retired on 30.06.2015 as Accountant of Central Bank of India, Branch Silondi, Tehsil Dheemarkheda, District-Katni and during his tenure, no allegations were made against him. There is no allegation against the present applicant in respect of any transaction relating to Central Bank of India where he was posted. The applicant was neither authorized to prepare any KCC loan nor any amount was paid by him. The amount was paid in the account of the concerned beneficiary. The offence was committed by one Anand Pyasi. Learned trial Court has failed to appreciate the Handwriting Expert report wherein the thumb impression of Munni