RESERVED JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.319 OF 2008 (U/s 482 Of Cr.P.C.) Ramesh Chandra Karnatak …………Applicant Versus State of Uttarakhand & another …………Respondents Dated: August 17, 2010 Sri Manoj Tewari, Sr. Adv. Assisted by Sri Bhagwat Mehra, Advocate for the applicant Sri Amit Bhatt, Addl. GA for the State/respondent nos.1 & 2 Sri Rakesh Thapliyal, Adv. for the respondent no.3 HON. DHARAM VEER, J. This criminal application, preferred u/s 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter to be referred as Cr.P.C.), is directed for quashing the charge- sheet dated 1.6.2007 filed in Criminal Case No.3128 of 2007 pending before Addl. CJM, Haldwani U/s 420/467/ 468/471 IPC and also to quash the orders dated 5.5.2008 (contained as Annexures 16 and 17 respectively) passed by the court below. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record. In brief, the facts of the case are that on 15.3.2007, respondent no.3-Daljeet Singh lodged an FIR stating therein that in the year 1997, he entered into an agreement with the petitioner Ramesh Karnatak for selling his land and an agreement was also reduced in writing which came to end in the year 2000. That even after a lapse of plenty of time of the said agreement, the petitioner, without bringing into the knowledge of the complainant, started making transactions for selling complainant’s land. When the complainant came to know, he resisted to it for 2 which the petitioner also tried to obtain stay order from the court below, but the application of the petitioner came to be dismissed by the court considering the same to be forged. It was further stated that the said agreement issued by the petitioner under the signatures of the respondent no.3/ complainant is absolutely false and fabricated, copy of which was also annexed and on the basis of that certificate, the petitioner was performing the transactions for selling the land of the respondent no.3 thereby causing loss to him and a copy of the said affidavit was also annexed by the complainant along with the FIR. Thereafter, the matter was investigated and after completing the investigation, the I.O. submitted the charge sheet against the petitioner on 1.6.2007 U/s 420/467/468/471 IPC, on the basis of which the learned ACJM took cognizance and directed to register the case on 5.11.2007. Thereafter, the petitioner appeared before the court below and moved an application on 10.4.2008, with the averments that the since the offence in question comes within the purview of Section 195 Cr.P.C., therefore, the cognizance cannot be taken by the court. The learned ACJM, Haldwani vide a detailed order dated 28.4.2008 rejected the said application and post the case for 5.5.2008 for framing of charge. Thereafter, the petitioner filed his objection against the framing of charge by moving an application, on which the court below vide order dated 5.5.2008 found that against the petitioner, prima facie the offences punishable u/s 467/468/471/420 IPC are made out and accordingly the court below proceeded for framing of charge. On the same day i.e. 5.5.2008, the charges punishable under Sections 467/468/471/420 IPC were framed against the petitioner. Assailing the charge sheet as well as both the orders dated 5.5.2008, the petitioner has filed this petition. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner argued that no offence is made out against him and the 3 court below has erred while taking cognizance against him. I do not find any force in this argument for the reason that on a perusal of the FIR filed by the complainant, the statement of the witnesses recorded u/s 161 Cr.P.C., who in their statements have amply corroborated the prosecution story, the offences punishable U/s 420/467/468/471 IPC, are prima facie made out against the petitioner on the basis of the above-said discussion and the trial court has rightly took the cognizance and accordingly, rightly summoned the petitioner to face trial. It was next argued on behalf of the petitioner that the disputed affidavit is signed by the respondent no.3 himself and not by the petitioner and hence no offence is made out. I do not find any force in this argument inasmuch as on the basis of the report given by the Scientific Officer, Forensic Science Laboratory, Haldwani dated 28.5.2007, which has been annexed as CA1 to the counter affidavit filed by the respondent no.3, it has specifically been stated in the result that the “questioned signature of Q1 and Q2 (Daljit Singh) are differ from the specimen signature of A1 to A39. Hence the signature of Daljit Singh on the affidavit are forged”, and as such, it cannot be said that the respondent no.3 Daljeet Singh had signed on the affidavit on question, rather it is proved that his signatures on the said affidavit were forged, and that affidavit was prepared just to cheat the complainant. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner next referred to the statement of Liladhar Nailwal, Public Notary, on the basis of which it was submitted that the petitioner and complainant had signed before that Notary. I am again at all not convinced with this argument for the reason that the said Public Notary was first of all examined in some civil suit filed on behalf of the petitioner against the respondent no.3. Even the learned counsel appearing for 4 the respondent no.3 argued that the agreement in question was existing only till the year 2000 itself and the disputed affidavit was prepared by the petitioner after that period just to cheat the complainant and with intention to cause loss to him. He further submitted that whether the respondent no.3 had signed over that affidavit or not, it requires a detailed examination for which the evidence is to be adduced and that can only be done in the trial court only. Now, the fact to be decided is that whether the report given by the Scientific Laboratory is true or the statement of that Public Notary is correct, that now becomes a factual question which cannot be decided by this Court while exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. inasmuch as the case shall be decided by the trial court on the basis of the entire evidence adduced before it. It was next argued that the offences punishable u/Ss 420/467/468/471 IPC are not made out against the petitioner and the trial court was not correct in framing charge against him. I do not find any force in this argument. On the basis of the investigation and the statements recorded by the Investigating Officer u/s 161 Cr.P.C. and on the basis of facts and circumstances of the case, the offences u/s 420/467/468/471 IPC are fully made out against the petitioner and the Trial Court has rightly framed the charge against the petitioner under those sections. It is settled law that 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. I am fortified in my view with the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court reported in 2007 AIR SCW 3683 “Soma Chakravarty vs. State (Th.CBI). Paragraphs 19 and 20 of this judgment are reproduced hereunder: - “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 5 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 accused committed the offence, can only be decided in the trial.” Thus, in view of the above-said judgment, it is now well settled 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 accused committed the offence, can only be decided in the trial. Even otherwise, the trial court will decide the case after recording the evidence of the complainant as well as of the accused and also on the basis of the appreciation 6 of the evidence as per law. It is well settled that while exercising jurisdiction under section 482 of the Cr.P.C., this Court would not ordinarily embark upon the enquiry as to whether the evidence in question is reliable or not or whether on a reasonable appreciation of it accusation would not be sustained. That is the function of the trial court. The trial court will decide the case after recording the evidence adduced before it. I am of the view that in the present case there is neither any miscarriage of justice nor any abuse of process of court. For the reasons recorded above, there is no force in the application. The application C482 is devoid of merit and is hereby dismissed. Interim order dated 21.05.2008 is vacated. (Dharam Veer, J.) August 17, 2010 Rdang