Back
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Kumar Srivastava, J
Anand Pyasi – Appellant
Versus
State of Madhya Pradesh – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. allegations of forgery involve certain factual statements. (Para 2 , 18) |
| 2. defense raises issues regarding evidence and implications. (Para 3 , 4) |
| 3. court evaluates sufficiency of evidence for charge framing. (Para 6 , 19) |
| 4. revision petition outcomes determined after consideration of legal standards. (Para 20) |
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
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
