No Right is conferred by the Code to the Accused Person to Prove his Innocence at the Stage of Framing of Charge [Case Law]

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 482 - No right is conferred by the Code to the accused person to prove his innocence at the stage of framing of charge.

THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH: MAIN SEAT AT JABALPUR

(DIVISION BENCH : HON. SHRI S.K. SETH AND HON. SMT. NANDITA DUBEY, JJ)

(Delivered on this 8th day of May, 2018)

Misc. Criminal Case No.5233/2015 

S.P. Kohli ...Applicant/s V E R S U S State of Madhya Pradesh, Through:- Police Station - Special Police Estabilshment, Lokayukt Office, Bhopal Division, Bhopal (M.P.) ...Respondent/s Shri Ajay Mishra, Senior Advocate with Shri Laven Arora, Advocate for the applicant.

Shri Pankaj Dubey, Advocate for the respondent/Lokayukt.

O R D E R 

PER SETH, J.

This order shall also govern the disposal of M.Cr.C. No.17908/2015 (Rakesh Agrawal Vs. State of M.P. & Another), M.Cr.C. No.18049/2015 (Rakesh Agrawal Vs. State of M.P. & Another), Cr. Revision No.26/2016 (Paramjeet Singh Bedi Vs. State of M.P.), Cr. Revision No.30/2016 (Paramjeet Singh Bedi Vs. State of M.P.), M.Cr.C. No.10000/2016 (Abdul Rehman Vs. Special Police Establishment & Another), Cr. Revision No.3158/2016 (Smt. Komal Lulla & Another Vs. State of M.P.) and M.Cr.C. No.3868/2017 (Rakesh Agrawal Vs. State of M.P. & Another) as all the petitions raise identical legal controversy. For the sake of convenience and disposal of the present controversy, we have noticed the facts from M.Cr.C. No.5233/2015.

2. In this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, applicant is seeking quashment and setting aside of the impugned order dated 16.05.2014 passed by the Special Judge (Prevention of Corruption Act), Bhopal as well as criminal proceedings pending in Special Case No.07/2014 against the applicant.

3. In brief, prosecution case is that the applicant is an auction purchaser of land. Allegation against the applicant is that he has colluded and conspired with the officers of the Cooperative Department to purchase land of one Bhagchand which was worth Rs.1,67,000/- for a meagre sum of Rs.50,000/-. Thus, he not only caused revenue loss to the Government but also financial loss to the real owner of the agricultural land near the vicinity of State Capital, Bhopal.

4. On a complaint in this factual back ground, Lokayukt Organization registered a case under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B, 34 of the IPC and under Sections 13 (1)(d) & 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 against accused persons who are involved in the scam. After investigation, material collected showed prima facie case under Section 420 and 120-B of IPC against applicant, therefore, chargesheet was filed against him. After going through the charge-sheet and material filed along with it, learned Special Judge (Prevention of Corruption) Bhopal framed charge against applicant for offence as mentioned above. It is pertinent to point out that the trial Court took cognizance and framed charges under Sections 420 and 120-B of IPC against the applicant. Applicant had preferred Criminal Revision No.1854/2018 (S.P. Kohli Vs. State of M.P.) to challenge the order of framing charges, which we have dismissed on 27.04.2018.

5. Applicant is assailing the F.I.R. on the ground that as an auction purchaser of land, he had nothing to do with the irregularities committed by the alleged officers of the Cooperative Department in the auction proceedings. It is also submitted that the applicant, being a bonafide purchaser is being wrongly prosecuted and roped into the controversy without there being any oral or documentary evidence against him. It is further submitted that no offence is made out against the applicant and therefore, it is submitted that F.I.R. registered against the applicant be quashed.

6. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the applicant has placed reliance on the decisions of the Supreme Court in the case of R.P. Kapur Vs State of Punjab reported in AIR 1960 SC 866, Century Spinning & Manufacturing Co. Ltd. VS. State of Maharashtra reported in AIR 1972 SC 545, Niranjan Singh Karam Singh Punjabi Vs. Jitendra Bhimraj Bijja & Others reported in AIR 1990 SC 1962, Ghanshyam Sharma Vs. Surendra Kumar Sharma & Others reported in (2014) 14 SCC 401 and Harmanpreet Singh Ahluwalia & Others Vs. State of Punjab & Others reported in (2009) 7 SCC 712.

7. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondent/Lokayukt submitted that there is sufficient material on record to indicate that applicant was involved with the officers of the Cooperative Department in a conspiracy to sell out and purchase costly land at a throw-away price. It is also submitted that in the instant case, land worth Rs.1,67,000/- was sold in bogus auction to the applicant for a meagre sum of Rs.50,000/- in collusion with the authorities of the Cooperative Department, hence no fault can be found with the F.I.R. registered against the applicant.

8. We have heard the rival submissions at length and perused the material placed on record. On a careful consideration, we are of the opinion that there is no merit in the contention of counsel for the applicant.

9. It is well settled principle of law that if the allegation made in the F.I.R. are taken at their face value constitute offence, the criminal proceedings instituted on the basis of such F.I.R. should not be quashed.

10. In the case of “Arun Shankar Shukla Vs. State of U.P. reported in AIR 1999 SC 2554 ”, it has been held by their Lordships as under:- 

“It is true that under Section 482 of the Code, the High Court has inherent powers to make such orders as may be necessary to give effect to any order under the Code or to prevent the abuse of process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. But the expressions “abuse of the process of law” or “to secure the ends of justice” do not confer unlimited jurisdiction on the High Court and the alleged abuse of the process of law or the ends of justice could only be secured in accordance with law including procedural law and not otherwise. Further, inherent powers are in the nature of extraordinary powers to be used sparingly for achieving the object mentioned in Section 482 of the Code in cases where there is no express provision empowering the High Court to achieve the said object. It is well neigh settled that inherent power is not to be invoked in respect of any matter covered by specific provisions of the Code or if its exercise would infringe any specific provision of the Code.” 

11. The powers possessed by the High Court under Section 482 of the Code are very wide and very plenitude of the power requires great caution in its exercise, when such exercise is justified by the tests specifically specified in the Section itself.

12. The law relating to quashing of the F.I.R. is well-settled by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in the case of State of H.P. Vs. Pirthi Chand reported in (1996) 2 SCC 37 wherein it has been held as under:- 

“Great care should be taken by the High Court before the embarking to scrutinizes the FIR/charge-sheet/complaint. In deciding whether the case is rarest of rare cases to scuttle the prosecution in its inception, it first has to get into the grip of the matter whether the allegations constitute the offence. It must be remembered that FIR is only an initiation to move the machinery and to investigate into cognizable offence .” 

13. In view of the principle of law enunciated by the Supreme Court in Arun Shankar Shukla (supra), we are conscious of limitations and it would not be in ends of justice to torpedo the criminal investigation in the midsession. It is not one of those rarest of rare case, which calls for exercise of inherent powers.

14. It is also pertinent to point out that petition filed by similar auction purchaser for quashment of charges has also been dismissed by this Court in Criminal Revision No.2477/2016 (Abdul Nadeem Khan Vs. State of M.P.) vide order dated 23.01.2017 and petitions filed by similarly placed co-accused have also been dismissed by this Court in Writ Petition No.8043/2014 (B.S. Waskel Vs. State of M.P. & Others) vide order dated 28.07.2015 and Writ Petition No.20006/2014 (Ashok Mishra Vs. State of M.P. & Another) vide order dated 28.10.2015.

15. Submission of the learned counsel for the applicant is that there is no material to connect the applicant with the offence and learned trial court should have discharged him.

16. At the stage of framing charges, Court is required to consider only the material placed by the prosecution, and there is no provision in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 giving right to the accused to place material in defence at the stage of framing of charge. That stage would come later in the trial at the time of defence. We find no fault with the view taken by the trial Court.

17. In this context, we may profitably refer to the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of State of Orissa Vs. Debendra Nath Padhi reported in (2005) 1 SCC 568. Even in a subsequent decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Rukmini Narvekar Vs. Vijaya Satardekar and others reported in (2008) 14 SCC 1, wherein it was held that at the time of framing of charge, the material produced by the defence cannot be considered by the Court.

18. In view of this, the legal position is clear that no right is conferred by the Code to the accused person to prove his innocence at the stage of framing of charge. We, therefore, find no flaw with the F.I.R.

19. It is settled law that the Court is not expected to marshal the record with a view to decide the admissibility and reliability of document on record. The trial Court is justified in framing charge against the accused. The defence of the applicant would not be considered at the time of framing of charges. It can be considered at an appropriate stage of defence evidence.

20. In the case of State of Rajasthan Vs. Fatehkaran Mehdu reported in [(2017) 3 SCC 198], Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under: 

“The framing of charge is not a stage, at which stage final test of guilt is to be applied. Thus, to hold that at the stage of framing the charge, the court should form an opinion that the accused is certainly guilty of committing an offence, is to hold something which is neither permissible nor is in consonance with scheme of Code of Criminal Procedure.” 

21. In view of the aforesaid discussions and the statement of law, we do not find any merit and substance in the present petition, therefore, the same being devoid of any substance is hereby dismissed.

22. Let a copy of this order be retained in the record of M.Cr.C. No.17908/2015, M.Cr.C. No.18049/2015, Cr. Revision No.26/2016, Cr. Revision No.30/2016, M.Cr.C. No.10000/2016, Cr. Revision No.3158/2016 and M.Cr.C. No.3868/2017.

23. Ordered accordingly.