IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL CRIMINAL MISC. APPLICATION NO.508 OF 2006 (U/s 482 of Cr.P.C.) Bijendra Singh …………Applicant Versus State of Uttarakhand and another …………Respondents Dated: July 22, 2010 Mr. R.P. Nautiyal, Advocate for the applicant Mr. Amit Bhatt, Addl. GA for the State Mr. Sachin Mohan Singh Mehta, Adv. i/b Mr. Lokendra Dobhal, Advocate for respondent no.2 HON. DHARAM VEER, J. By means of this petition, moved under Section 482 of The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short Cr.P.C.), the petitioner/applicant has sought quashing of the order dated 15.5.2006 passed by Judicial Magistrate, C.B.I., Dehradun and the order dated 20.6.2006 passed by Sessions Judge, Dehradun as well as the proceedings of criminal case no.387 of 2004, Dharam Singh Rawat v. Bijendra Singh, under Section 420 of IPC. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the entire material available on file. In brief, the facts of the case are that Dharam Singh Rawat (respondent no.2) filed a complaint in the court of Special Judicial Magistrate, Dehradun with the allegations that for purchasing 22 Bigha land of Khasra Nos.827 and 1120, situated at Mauza Nathanpur, District Dehradun from the applicant on the sale consideration of Rs.19,36,000/-, an agreement was executed between the respondent no.2 and the applicant on 28.8.2002, in pursuance of which, the respondent no.2 paid total Rs.3,50,000/- to the applicant as 2 earnest money, but subsequently, it came into the knowledge of respondent no.2 that the applicant is the owner of only 2-2½ Bigha land, which is mortgaged in the bank. It is further alleged that when the respondent no.2 demanded his earnest money from the applicant, then the applicant threatened the respondent no.2 that in case he makes any report in police or he comes to demand of his earnest money, then the respondent no.2 will not returned alive. With the same averments, this complaint was filed by respondent no.2 against the applicant in the court, which was registered as Criminal Case No.387 of 2004. The complainant in support of his case got himself examined u/s 200 Cr.P.C. and u/s 200 of Cr.P.C., Natha Singh and Shashtri Prasad were got examined. After hearing learned counsel for the complainant and perusing the record available, learned Judicial Magistrate, CBI, Dehradun took the cognizance against the applicant u/Ss 406 and 506 of IPC and accordingly he was summoned. Thereafter, on 15.5.2006, after recording the evidence u/s 244 of Cr.P.C., the learned Judicial Magistrate, CBI, Dehradun directed to frame the charge against the applicant and, on 15.5.2006, he framed charge u/s 420 of I.P.C. against the applicant. Being aggrieved by the charge dated 15.5.2006, the applicant preferred a revision before the Sessions Judge, Dehradun, who, vide his order dated 20.6.2006 rejected the revision of the applicant. Feeling aggrieved by the said orders dated 15.5.2006 and 20.6.2006, the applicant has preferred the present C482 application before this Court. From a perusal of the contents of the complaint as well as the statement recorded u/s 244 of Cr.P.C. and after going through other papers available in file, I am of the view that prima facie a case under Section 420 of IPC is made out against the applicant and the charge u/s 420 of IPC is accordingly rightly framed by the trial court against the applicant. I am fortified in my view with the judgment of 3 Hon’ble Apex Court in case of “Soma Chakravarty vs. State (Th.CBI)” reported in 2007 AIR SCW 3683, in which it has been held that on the basis of material on record the court could form an opinion that the accused might have committed offence it can frame the charge, though for conviction the conclusion is required to be proved beyond reasonable doubt that the accused has committed the offence. At the time of framing of the charge the probative value of the material on record cannot be gone into and the material brought on record by the prosecution has to be accepted as true at that stage. Paras-19 and 20 of the said judgment are essential to mention here, which reads as under:- “19. Learned counsel for the appellant relied on the decisions of this Court in Union of India and another vs. Major J.S. Khanna etc. 1972 (3) SCC 873; State of Maharashtra and others vs. Som Nath Thapa and others, 1996 (4) SCC 659 and L Chandraiah vs. State of A.P. and another, 2003 (12) SCC 670 and contended that before framing the charges the court must have some material on the basis of which it can come to the conclusion that there is a prima facie case against the accused. In our opinion there was such material before the Court while framing the charge. 20. It may be mentioned that the settled legal position, as mentioned in the above decisions, is that if on the basis of material on record the Court could form an opinion that the accused might have committed offence it can frame the charge, though for conviction the conclusion is required to be proved beyond reasonable doubt that the accused has committed the offence. At the time of framing of the charges the probative value of the material on record cannot be gone into, and the material brought on record by the prosecution has to be accepted as true at that stage. Before framing a charge the court must apply its judicial mind on the material placed on record and must be satisfied that the commitment of offence by the accused was possible. Whether, in fact, the 4 accused committed the offence, can only be decided in the trial.” For the reasons recorded above, there is no force in the application. The C482 application, being devoid of merit, is dismissed accordingly. Interim order dated 7.7.2006 stands vacated. (Dharam Veer, J.) 22.07.2010 RG