Full Text
Translation output
CRL.M.C. 66/2013 Page 1
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
CRL.M.C. 66/2013 & Crl.M.As. No.278 & 13593/2013
RANJAN SUKHANI ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. M.K. Sharma and Mr. Y.R.
Sharma, Advocates
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
CRL.M.C. 66/2013 & Crl.M.As. No.278 & 13593/2013
RANJAN SUKHANI ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. M.K. Sharma and Mr. Y.R.
Sharma, Advocates
VERSUS
STATE GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI ..... Respondent
Through: Mr. Mukesh Gupta, Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent-
State
Through: Mr. Mukesh Gupta, Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent-
State
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR O R D E R 11.09.2013
Impugned order of 17th February, 2012 affirms trial court’s order putting petitioner on trial for the offence under Sections 420/471 of IPC.
Quashing of impugned order as well as trial court’s order and the charge framed in FIR No.630/2004 P.S. Hauz Khas, Delhi is sought in this petition on the ground that petitioner has been discharged for the offence under Section 468 of IPC and so, he cannot be charged for the offence under Section 471 of IPC.
At the hearing, it was urged by learned counsel for petitioner that in proceedings under Section 138 of The Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, all the dues of the complainant-bank have been cleared and so, the continuance of proceedings arising out of FIR in question is an abuse of process of court. Reliance is placed by learned counsel for petitioner upon
2013:DHC:4590
Impugned order of 17th February, 2012 affirms trial court’s order putting petitioner on trial for the offence under Sections 420/471 of IPC.
Quashing of impugned order as well as trial court’s order and the charge framed in FIR No.630/2004 P.S. Hauz Khas, Delhi is sought in this petition on the ground that petitioner has been discharged for the offence under Section 468 of IPC and so, he cannot be charged for the offence under Section 471 of IPC.
At the hearing, it was urged by learned counsel for petitioner that in proceedings under Section 138 of The Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, all the dues of the complainant-bank have been cleared and so, the continuance of proceedings arising out of FIR in question is an abuse of process of court. Reliance is placed by learned counsel for petitioner upon
2013:DHC:4590
CRL.M.C. 66/2013 Page 2 a decision of Gujarat High Court in Arvind Balashanker Joshi v. State of
Gujarat 1991 Crl .L. J. 2241 to contend that once an accused is acquitted for the offence under Section 468 of IPC, then he cannot be convicted for the offence under Section 471 of IPC.
Attention of this Court was also drawn to a letter of 25th July, 2007 of complainant-bank to point out that there are no dues against petitioner in respect of overdraft facility in question. Lastly, it was contended on behalf of petitioner that no application was filed by petitioner to seek overdraft facility of `45 lac and so, petitioner ought to be discharged in this criminal case.
Mr. Mukesh Gupta, Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent –
State had vehemently supported the impugned order and had submitted that since the source of forged documents could not be established, therefore, petitioner was discharged for the offence under Section 468 of
IPC but merely because petitioner has been discharged for the offence under Section 468 of IPC, he cannot be discharged for the offence under
Section 471 of IPC.
During the course of the hearing, it was pointed out by learned
Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent -State that the decision in
Arvind (supra) relied upon by petitioner has no application to the instant case as it is to be seen at trial whether there is any direct or independent evidence and since the documents, as referred to in the charge framed of
28th April, 2011, are purportedly forged and therefore, petitioner’s trial for the offence under Section 420/471 of IPC is well merited.
At this stage, learned counsel for petitioner had submitted that petitioner is residing in Mumbai and his identity is not in dispute and if
Gujarat 1991 Crl .L. J. 2241 to contend that once an accused is acquitted for the offence under Section 468 of IPC, then he cannot be convicted for the offence under Section 471 of IPC.
Attention of this Court was also drawn to a letter of 25th July, 2007 of complainant-bank to point out that there are no dues against petitioner in respect of overdraft facility in question. Lastly, it was contended on behalf of petitioner that no application was filed by petitioner to seek overdraft facility of `45 lac and so, petitioner ought to be discharged in this criminal case.
Mr. Mukesh Gupta, Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent –
State had vehemently supported the impugned order and had submitted that since the source of forged documents could not be established, therefore, petitioner was discharged for the offence under Section 468 of
IPC but merely because petitioner has been discharged for the offence under Section 468 of IPC, he cannot be discharged for the offence under
Section 471 of IPC.
During the course of the hearing, it was pointed out by learned
Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent -State that the decision in
Arvind (supra) relied upon by petitioner has no application to the instant case as it is to be seen at trial whether there is any direct or independent evidence and since the documents, as referred to in the charge framed of
28th April, 2011, are purportedly forged and therefore, petitioner’s trial for the offence under Section 420/471 of IPC is well merited.
At this stage, learned counsel for petitioner had submitted that petitioner is residing in Mumbai and his identity is not in dispute and if
CRL.M.C. 66/2013 Page 3 this matter has to proceed for trial, then petitioner’s personal appearance be exempted before the trial court and his counsel would be appearing before the trial court on 12th and 13th September, 2013 when this matter is listed for recording of the prosecution evidence.
Learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent –State had submitted that petitioner can always file an application for exemption from his personal appearance before the trial court for 12th and 13th September, 2013.
Upon hearing both the sides and on perusal of the impugned order, material on record and the decision cited, I find that the decision in
Arvind (supra) is of no avail to the case of petitioner because in the charge-sheet filed, it has been categorically asserted that documents, as referred to in the charge framed, are forged. Whether these documents are forged or not is a matter of trial. Similarly, whether any application is made by petitioner or not and whether overdraft facility limit could be extended without an application, are the matters which pertain to realm of evidence.
The settled legal position is that an accused can be put on trial even on grave suspicion. On this aspect Apex Court in Amit Kapoor v. Ramesh
Chander and Another (2012) 9 SCC 460 has reiterated as under: -
"At the initial stage of framing of a charge, the court is concerned not with proof but with a strong suspicion that the accused has committed an offence, which, if put to trial, could prove him guilty. All that the court has to see is that the material on record and the facts would be compatible with the innocence of the accused or not. The final test of guilt is not to be applied at the stage."
CRL.M.C. 66/2013 Page 4
In the considered opinion of this Court, there is no palpable error in the impugned order warranting exercise of inherent jurisdiction of this
Court under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. However, in view of the complainant-bank’s letter of 25th July, 2007 disclosing that there are no outstanding dues against petitioner, the personal appearance of petitioner before the trial court for 12th and 13th September, 2013 be dispensed with, if petitioner files an application for exemption from personal appearance on these two dates while not disputing his identity.
In the aforesaid terms, this petition is disposed of while not commenting upon merits lest it may prejudice petitioners at trial.
Copy of this order be given dasti under the signatures of Court
Master or Private Secretary.
(SUNIL GAUR)
Judge SEPTEMBER 11, 2013 s
Learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent –State had submitted that petitioner can always file an application for exemption from his personal appearance before the trial court for 12th and 13th September, 2013.
Upon hearing both the sides and on perusal of the impugned order, material on record and the decision cited, I find that the decision in
Arvind (supra) is of no avail to the case of petitioner because in the charge-sheet filed, it has been categorically asserted that documents, as referred to in the charge framed, are forged. Whether these documents are forged or not is a matter of trial. Similarly, whether any application is made by petitioner or not and whether overdraft facility limit could be extended without an application, are the matters which pertain to realm of evidence.
The settled legal position is that an accused can be put on trial even on grave suspicion. On this aspect Apex Court in Amit Kapoor v. Ramesh
Chander and Another (2012) 9 SCC 460 has reiterated as under: -
"At the initial stage of framing of a charge, the court is concerned not with proof but with a strong suspicion that the accused has committed an offence, which, if put to trial, could prove him guilty. All that the court has to see is that the material on record and the facts would be compatible with the innocence of the accused or not. The final test of guilt is not to be applied at the stage."
CRL.M.C. 66/2013 Page 4
In the considered opinion of this Court, there is no palpable error in the impugned order warranting exercise of inherent jurisdiction of this
Court under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. However, in view of the complainant-bank’s letter of 25th July, 2007 disclosing that there are no outstanding dues against petitioner, the personal appearance of petitioner before the trial court for 12th and 13th September, 2013 be dispensed with, if petitioner files an application for exemption from personal appearance on these two dates while not disputing his identity.
In the aforesaid terms, this petition is disposed of while not commenting upon merits lest it may prejudice petitioners at trial.
Copy of this order be given dasti under the signatures of Court
Master or Private Secretary.
(SUNIL GAUR)
Judge SEPTEMBER 11, 2013 s
JUDGMENT