S) Slngle E IN THE HIGHCOURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR fC.G.) CR.M.P. No. ^} C- ^-'/2010 APPLICANT ^?> •^- ft-i*:.~'<^'' sp--;"^' ^•f' v y'" >^?>:'^">''.. ^•^^ Padum Kumar Soni S/o- late Gokul Prasad Soni, aged about 45 years, proprietor of M/s Saraswati Jewelers & Krishna Enterprises Champa, R/o- Sonarpara, Champa, Polcie station- Champa, District- Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) NON-APPLICANTS Complainant -^p>/ ''•' 7% VERSUS 1. 2. State of Chhattisgarh, Through Police station - Janjgir, District- Janjgir - Champa (C.G.) Kailash Gupta S/o- late Shankar Lal Gupta, aged about 49 years, R/o- Gandhi Chowk, ward no. 15, C/o- Deepak Provision Store, P.S.- Janjgir, Dist.- Janjgir- Champa (C.G.) «^53CRIMINALMISC. PETITION UNDER SECTION 483 OF THE CODE OF CRIMINALPROCEDURE 1973 rE f&. HIGH COURT OF CHHATT1SGARH : B1LASPUR Sinnle Bench: Hon'ble Shri Manindra Mohan Shrivastava, J. Cr.M.P.No.762/2010 Applicant Non-applicants Padum Kumar Soni Versus State of Chhattisgarh and another Petition under Section 482 oftheCode ofCriminaJ Procedyre Present;- Shri F. S. Khare, counsel for the applicant. Shri Vaibhav Goverdhan, Panel Lawyer for the State. ORAL ORDER (Passedon 15-11-2011) Heard finally. 2. This petition under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioner seeking quashment of order dated 28-07-2010 passed by the Sessions Judge, Janjgir-Champa in Criminal Revision No.46/2010, by which, the Revisional Court has affirmed order dated 26-05-2010, by which, charges under Section 419 & 420 of the IPC have been framed against the petitioner. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the entire charge sheet even if taken on its face value, does not make out commission of offence under Section 420 of the IPC, because from the charge sheet, alt that has been alleged is that the petitioner made an attempt to commit the offence of cheating, but, there was no actual delivery of property or any other valuable security as a result of deception alleged to be made by the petitioner, and therefore, the Court below was not justified in framing charges under Section 419 & 420 of the IPC against the petitioner. Learned counsel submits that in such cases, prosecution of the petitioner for alleged commission of offence under Section 420 of the IPC, would be abuse of the process of law, because ths charge sheet does not contain any such material for commission of offence, for which, charges have been framed. ^a.' g ^T"?^ .4 "^E- In support of his contention, learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance in the case of Mahamad Yasin vs. State, 1967, Cr.LJ. 1116 (Vol.73, C.N.281). 4. On the other hand, learned State counsel submits that from the entire charge sheet, the allegations of fact, which have been made out against the petitioner by the prosecution in the light of the FIR and the case diary statements, prima facie make out a case for commission of offence under Section 420 of the IPC. He submits that the specific allegations contained in the FIR and the case diary statement would show that the petitioner impersonated himself as Weight & Measure Inspector and committed the offence of deception having made all preparation to commitoffences and before the petitioner-accused could collect amount, upon query made, he ran away from the spot. He submits thatthese allegations of fact contained in the FIR and the case diary statements clearly shows that the petitioner has committed offence under Section420 ofthe IPC. He submits that the question as to whether and to what extent the property was delivered as a result of deception and impersonation by the petitioner is a matter of consideration during trial and the tearned trial Court is empowered to convict a person, who is charged with an offence, for an attempt to commit offences, all though, an attempt to commit offence is not separately charged. In support of his contention, learned State counsel places reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case oi Abhayanand Mishra v. State ofBihar, AIR 1961 SC 1698 (V 48 C 317). 5. The allegation contained in the FIR and the case diary statement shows that the petitioner falsely impersonated as Weight & Measure Inspector, reached at the shop and sought to recover certain amount from the shopkeeper. The allegations contained therein would show that while the petitioner was insisting to and also acted towards recovery of certain amount, alarm was raised, upon which, the petitioner ran away from the spot. The aforesaid allegations contained in the FIR, are prima facie supported Jrom the case diary statements, which have ^. ./ \1 -i<?M ,f^»^<, )? & ..;.-,.. I %s'gfes?.'"1 ; § "sa^c-—^^ '1% ^. been recorded by the Police during investigation and placed on the record of the charge sheet, while submitting charge sheet before the Magistrate. 6. It is well settled that for the purpose of framing charge all that is required to be seen as to whether a case of sufficient ground for proceedings is made out and at this stage, the Court is not required to see whether a case for conviction is made out or not. (Please see-S(a(e of Madhya Pradesh vs. S. B. Johri and others, (2000) 1 Jabalpur Law Journal 12 and Niranjan Singh Karam Singh Punjabi vs. Jitendra Bhim Raj Bijjaya and Others, (1990) 4 SCC 76.) 7. The substance with regard to result of deception andactual delivery of property is a matter of consideration during trial. In view of the provisions contained in Section 222(3) of the Cr.P.C., after recording of evidence during trial, even if it is found that an attempt was made to commit the offence, the Court is empowered to convict for attempt to commit the offence alleged. The learned trial Court is empowered to alter the charges at any stage of trial in view of the evidence recorded by it. All these are matter of consideration during trial. The petitioner would be at liberty to move appropriate application for alteration of charges at appropriate stage of the trial in accordance with the procedure of law. However, from the contents of the charge sheet as also the allegations contained >; in the case diary statements, 1 am not inclined to inferfere with the orders framing charge. 8. The petition is accordingly dismissed. Sd/- Manindra Mohan Shrivastava Judge Tumane