HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH.BILASPUR APPLICANT/: (Accused) RESPONDENTS/: (Complainants) (Accused)/ (Revisioner) Criminal Misc. Petition No.204 of 2010 Mahaveer Prasad Gupta, S/o Shri Rohit Kumar Gupta, aged about 61 years, R/o Sunder Nagar, Thana Deendayal Upadhyay Nagar, Tahsil & Distt. Raipur Versus 1. State of Chhattisgarh, Through Police Station Saraswati Nagar, Raipur (C.G.) 2. G. Imenu L, aged about 70 years, S/o Jaicab Imenu L, R/o Amlidih, Tahsil & Distt. Raipur (C.G.) {Application under Section 482 ofthe Code of Criminal Procedure} Present: Mr. T.K. Tiwari, counsel forthe petitioner. Mr. Rakesh Kumar Jha, Deputy Govt. Advocate for the State/ respondent No.1. Single Bench: Hon'ble Mr. T.P. Sharma, J ORAL ORDER (1-3-2011) 1 By this petition under Section 482 of the CrPC, the petitioner has challenged legality & propriety of the order dated 26-12-2009 passed by the 2" Additional Sessions Judge, Raipur in Criminal Revision No. 176/2007, affirming the order dated 30-10-2007 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Raipur in Criminal Case No.1035/2005, whereby learned Judicial Magistrate First Class has framed charge ofthe offence punishable under Sections 467, 468 & 471 ofthe IPC against the petitioner. 2. As per copies of some documents filed on behalf of the petitioner and copy of charge, the petitioner herein & respondent No.2 herein were working in Pt. Ravi Shankar Shukla University, Raipur in different capacities in the Examination Brach. Revaluation sheet of one candidate Kumari Smriti Joseph was found tampered and forged. Report was lodged by the Vice Chancellor of the University. One of the accused Tikaram has also submitted written application on 15-3-99 to the ^ .,"»^ ^ A .„ 'h si tt ^ ''^e^^^:ts&\ M iasat-"»-i|a ^ Registrar of the University in which he has given details of commission of offence and incident. Documents were also sent to the Expert for examination and as per report of the Expert, the Expert has expressed that it would not be possible to give definite opinion regarding authorship of added, obliterated and altered portions of the questioned documents. After providing opportunity of hearing to the parties, learned Judicial Magistrate First Class has framed charge against the petitioner herein along with other accused persons, same was challenged before the revisional Court and by the impugned order, the revisional Couri: has dismissed the revision and affirmed the order ofthe trial Court. 3. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the order impugned and documents filed on behalf of the petitioner. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued that although at the time of criminal charge no meticulous scrutiny of evidence is required, but the prosecution is required to produce prima facie sufficient material for framing of charge against the accused. In the light of report of the Expert, the prosecution was under obligation to produce substantive material against the petitioner, but the prosecution has not collected and produced any material against the petitioner for framing of charge under Sections 467, 468 & 471 of the IPC. Learned counsel further argued that in the aforesaid circumstances, continuance of any criminal prosecution against the petitioner would be abuse of process of the Court. Learned counsel placed reliance in the matter of State of Haryana and others v. Bhajan Lal and others in which while considering the scope of power under Section 482 of the CrPC, the Supreme Court has formulated some guidelines. Learned counsel also argued that in the light of aforesaid preposition of law, charges against the petitioner are not sustainable under the law. Learned counsel further placed reliance in the matter of Mohammed Ibrahim and others v. State of Bihar and another^ in which the Supreme Court has held that in absence of evidence of forgery and false document, charge under Sections 467 & 471 ofthe IPC is not sustainable. 5. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the petition and submits that the Court below has rightly framed charge and has not committed any illegality requiring interference in exercise of inherent 1 1992 8upp(1) SCC 335 2 (2009) 8 SCC 751 •V3S'::m^ Jf ./^' ..£.'' s-r f9. jurisdiction. Substantially, the Court has relied upon the application containing details of commission of offence submitted by co-accused Tikaram to the Registrar of the University on 15-3-99. This document alone is sufficient for framing of charge and if the said document is unrebutted, same would be sufficient for conviction of the petitioner. 6. This is petition under Section 482 of the CrPC. Scope of interference in terms of Section 482 of the CrPC is limited. Power under Section 482 of the CrPC is exceptional in nature and should be used sparingly. 7. Atthe time offraming charge, no meticulous scrutiny or consideration of materiat in its evidentiary value is required, the Court is required to satisfy itself whether there is prima facie ground for proceeding for triat against the accused or not. As held by the Supreme Court in the matter of State of Bihar v. Ramesh Singh even strong suspicion against the accused that he has committed the offence would be sufficient for framing of charge. As per para 9 of the order impugned, co-accused Tikaram has submitted detailed application containing all the incidents to the Registrar of the University on 15-3-99. On the basis of aforesaid document, the Court below has framed charge against the petitioner. 8. By filing copies of other documents, the petitioner has not filed copy of the said application made by Tikaram to the Registrar of the University. Although copy of the aforesaid document was part of the charge sheet and has been supplied to the petitioner, but for the reasons best known to the petitioner, the petitioner has withheld this document along with the petition. The aforesaid document is sufficient for framing of aforesaid charges against the petitioner and if the material collected on behalf of the prosecution is unrebutted or admitted by the petitioner in its face value, it would be sufficient for conviction of the petitioner. 9. As held by the Supreme Court in Bhajan Lal's case (supra), continuance of proceeding would not be groundless or framing of charge will not be abuse of process of the Court, in the present case. As held by the Supreme Court in the matter of hflohammed Ibrahim (supra), definitely, the prosecution is required to produce material relating to forgery and false document. 3AIR1977SC2018 -•"^,. --A^ "-fe •a^-.^-'Ki^ 3'; 10.1n the present case, material collected on behalf of the prosecution, especially the alleged tampered document and application of Tikaram are sufficient to show that forgery has been committed and false document has been used as genuine. Consequently, 1 do not find any ground for interference in exercise of inherent jurisdiction in terms of Section482oftheCrPC. 11.The petition is, therefore, liable to be dismissed and it is hereby dismissed, in limine, with cost of Rs.3,000/- to be paid to the opposite party i.e. respondent No.1 herein within thirty days from today before the trial Court. 12.I.A.Nos.1 & 3 stand disposed of. Soma Sd/- T.P. Sharma Judge