LexSANGHI BROTHERS (INDORE) PVT. LTD. versus SANJAY CHOUDHARY AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
II I f- [2008] 14 S.C.R. 206 A SANGH! BROTHERS (INDORE) PVT. LTD. r II. SANJAY CHOUDHARY AND ORS. (Criminal Appeal No.1578 of 2008) B OCTOBER 3, 2008 [PR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND DR. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA, JJ.] ~ Code of Criminal Procedure, 1 Q73 - ss. 227, 228, 239, I c 240 & 245 - Charges of cheating and breach of trust framed ~- by Trial Court - Quashed by High Court after formulating an opinion about the prospect of conviction - Propriety of - Held: Not proper - While considering framing of charges, Court is required to consider whether material brought on record could D reasonably connect the accused with the trial - Nothing more is required to be inquired into - Test of prima facie case is to be applied - At that stage, there is no necessity of formulating ))._,- opinion about the prospect of conviction - Penal Code, 1860 - ss. 420 and 406 rlw s.34. E The Trial Court, on the complaint of appellant, framed ~ charges against the Respondents under Sections 420 and 406 IPC read with Section 34 IPC. It was the allega- tion of appellant that respondents took 45 dumper ve- hicles and 4 light commercial vehicles on lease from them, ' ,. F and in violation of .the agreement between them, illegally sold off 8 vehicles to other parties with ulterior motive, }'-- thus committing the offences of cheating and breach of ·trust. . Respondents filed a criminal revision petition. The G High Court upon considering the submission of respon- dents that no charge under Sections 420 and 406 IPC was ,, clearly made out against them on the basis of evidence +- (. on record and it was also not so unimpeachable that if it was not rebutted then a conviction could be based on it, H 206 SANGHI BROTHERS (INDORE) PVT. LTD. v. SANJAY 207 CHOUDHARY & ORS. ~ , quashed the criminal charges against them and thus al- A -( j lowed the criminal revision petition. Hence the appeal. Allowing the appeal, the Court HELD:1.1. The Court has to see while considering the question of framing the charge as to whether the ma- · B terial brought on record could reasonably connect the accused with the trial. Nothing more is required to be in- quired into. At the stage at which the Court is required to consider the question of framing of charge, the test of a prima facie case is to be applied. [Paras 8, 1 O] [212,8-C] c 1.2.The instant case is not one where the High Court ought to have interfered with the order of framing the charge. Even if there is a strong suspicion about the com- mission of offence and the involvement of the accused, it is sufficient for the Court to frame a charge. At that stage, D there is no necessity of formulating the opinion about the prospect of conviction. [Para 11] [212,F-G] State of Maharashtra and Ors. v. Som Nath Thapa and Ors. (1996) 4 SCC 659; State of Karnataka v. L. Muniswamy (1977) 2 SCC 699; Stree Atyachar Virodhi Parishad v. Dilip E Nathumal Chordia (1989) 1 SCC 715; State of West Bengal v. Mohd. Khalid (1995) 1 SCC 684 and R.S. Nayak v. A.R. Antulay (1986) 2 sec 716 - relied on. CASE LAW REFERENCE F (1996) 4 SCC 659 relied on Para 7 (1977) 2 sec 699 relied on (1989) 1 sec 715 relied on (1995) 1 sec 684 relied on (1986) 2 sec 716 relied on Para 8 Para 8 Para 8 Para 9 CRIM\NALAPPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal · No. 1578 of 2008 G H ·. ' 208 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 14 S.C.R. A From 'the final Judgment ·and Order dated 5.10.2006 of r. B the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Bench at Indore in Criminal Revision No. 865 of 2006 · . . K.T.S. Tulsi, Buddy A. Ranganadhan and A.V. Rangam for the Appellant. Dr. Rajeev Dhavan, S.K. Gambhir, S.K. Puri, Priya Puri, V.M. Chauhan and H.K. Puri for the Respondents. \- The Judgment ofthe Court was delivered by c DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. 1. Leave granted. 'D 2. C~'allenge in.this appeal is to the judgment of a learned Single Judge of the Madhya Pradesh High Court, Indore Bench allowing the Criminal Revision Petition filed by the respondents. Challenge in the Criminal Revision Petition was to the order dated 14.8.2006 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Indore in ~riminal case No.2114 of 2003. By the said order charges were framed against the respondents. The ·learned Judicial Magistrate directed framing of charge_for of- fence punishable 'under Sections 420, 406 read with Section ··." . E 34 IPC. - - ·' ...... · 3. Backgrourid facts as projected by appellant i
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.