The court upheld the necessity for prima facie evidence when framing charges, emphasizing that mere allegations are insufficient without supporting documentation.

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, present applicants 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 applicants and other co-accused have actively participated in the alleged offences. After filing challan, learned Sessions Judge has framed the charges against the present applicants 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 applicants submits that present applicants have been falsely implicated in the case. On reading of FIR, no offence is made out against the present applicants. The learned Sessions Judge has erroneously recorded the finding against the applicants. There is no material to show that the present applicants have committed cheating with the complainant or prepared any forged documents. The learned Sessions Judge has committed grave error in appreciating the whole factual scenario and mechanically for framing the charges against the applicants. The framing of charges is a very serious step in Criminal Trial and affects the personal liberty of the applicants, this should not be lightly done. The charges should be framed only if there is sufficient material available on record against the applicants for their guilt. Learned trial Court has failed to appreciate that neither any documents are taken by the applicants from any of the complainants nor prepared any forged documents in their names. There is no specific allegation against the present applicants. Police has seized only Rs.22000/- and Rs.26000/- from the possession of applicant-Ashok Pyasi and applicant-Anand Pyasi respectively. Applicants have enmity with the complainant, due to this, applicants have been falsely implicated in the case as an main accused. The main accused of the case is Pappu Lodhi who committed cheating with the complainant and others and also obtained necessary documents from them. The applicants have 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 by submitting that at this stage of framing the 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, offences are made out against the present applicants. The present applicants have actively pa