Order On Board

12/05/2022 Heard.

1. Instant petition is against the order dated 10/03/2022 passed by the First Additional Sessions Judge, Raipur in Criminal Revision No.226/2021 whereby the order challenging the framing of charge was affirmed.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the allegation against the petitioner is that he obtained money from 11 persons to provide job and thereafter gave them call letters, therefore only the fact that the charge under Section 420 of IPC was required to be framed against the petitioner, the other sections of 467, 468 and 471 cannot be automatically framed, therefore framing of the charge under section 467, 468 and 471 of IPC would be bad in law.

3. Per contra, learned State counsel opposes the argument.

4. Perusal of the record would show that written complaint was made in order to provide job. The victims were called in the Mantralaya, thereafter, certain document, admission card etc. were provided.

Certain call letters were also given. The submission of the petitioner that the call letter has been not been authenticated that they were fake, therefore only on the surmises the charges cannot be framed, do not appear to be logical. It is a matter of evidence which is to be gone into during the course of trial.

5. The Supreme Court in a case of Shoraj Singh Ahlawat Vs. State of U.P. reported in AIR 2013 SC 52 has observed that the Court trying the case can direct discharge only for the reasons to be recorded by it and only if it considers that the charges against the accused to be groundless. Section 240 of Cr.P.C. provides for framing of a charge which reads as under:

“240. Framing of charge.- (1) If, upon such consideration, examination, if any, and hearing, the Magistrate is of opinion that there is ground for presuming that the accused has committed an offence triable under this Chapter, which such Magistrate is competent to try and which, in his opinion, could be adequately punished by him, he shall frame in writing a charge against the accused.”

6. Reading of Section 240 shows that if, upon consideration of the police report and the documents sent therewith and making such examination, if any, of the accused as the Magistrate thinks necessary or the Magistrate is of the opinion that there is ground for presuming that the accused has committed an offence triable under Chapter XIX, which such Magistrate is competent to try and which can be adequately punished by him. The ambit of section 239 Cr.P.C., and the approach to be adopted by the Court while exercising the powers vested in it under the said provision fell for consideration of this Court in Onkar Nath Mishra Vs. state (NCT of Delhi) (2008) 2 SCC 561 : (AIR 2008 SC (Supp) 204 : 2008 AIR SCW 96).

7. Hon'ble the Supreme Court has further observed that it is well settled that at the stage of framing of charge, the defence of accused could not be put forth. The acceptance of the contention of the learned counsel for the accused would mean permitting the accused to adduce his defence at the stage of framing of charge and for examination thereof at that stage which is against the criminal jurisprudence. Therefore, taking into account the above position of law, the argument which has been advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant, cannot be accepted as prima facie the Court has to only see whether there is ground to presume that the accused had committed the offence or not ?

8. Further, the Supreme Court in a case law reported in M/s. Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. And others v. Md. Sharaful Haque and others (AIR 2005 SC 9), held thus :-

“8. Exercise of power under Section 482 of the Code in a case of this nature is the exception and not the rule. The Section does not confer any new powers on the High Court. It only saves the inherent power which the Court possessed before the enactment of the Code. It envisages three circumstances under which the inherent jurisdiction may be exercised, namely, (i) to give effect to an order u