ORDER
This criminal revision under Section 397/401 of the Cr.P.C., 1973 has been preferred by the petitioner/accused challenging the order dated 06.12.2023 passed by 4thAdditional Sessions Judge, Narsinghpur, District Narsinghpur in S.T.No.149/2023, whereby charges under Sections 420, 467, 468 & 471 of IPC have been framed against the petitioner.
2. As per prosecution case, the petitioner in order to grab the property of his late father, cheated and committed forgery with the respondent 1 and 2/complainants by forging the sinatures of his late father on the documents viz. Will, affidavit etc. and used the same in the revenue proceedings.
3. Taking this Court to the charges framed by the Court below as well as to the impugned order, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in fact, no offence under the aforesaid sections has been committed by the
1
petitioner and he has been falsely implicated in the case. He further submits that without taking into consideration the entire material available on record and even in absence of any material against the petitioner, the Court below has committed an illegality in framing the charges against the petitioner under the aforesaid offences. He also submits that in the impugned order also, nothing has been mentioned as to what material is available against the petitioner for framing the charges under the aforesaid sections. On inter alia submissions, he prays for setting aside the impugned order and for discharge of the petitioner.
4 . Learned counsel for the respondents supports the impugned order and prays for dismissal of the criminal revision by placing reliance on the decision in the case of Fiona Shrikhande vs. State of Maharashtra and another AIR 2014 SC 957.
5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
6. As to on what basis the Court has found availability of sufficient material against the petitioner, has not been mentioned in the impugned order, which is creating doubt about the veracity of charges framed by the Court under Sections 420, 467, 468 & 471 of IPC against the petitioner , which can be removed by the Court below itself by passing the speaking order.
7 . With a view to see the method and manner, in which the Court below has exercised its jurisdiction, complete extract of the impugned order dtd.06.12.2023, is quoted as under :
2
"म.. राय क ओर सेे ीमती सरता नामदेवे , अितर लोक अिभयोजक उप थत । अिभयुु आ#द$य कुमारु स#हत ी मोद दबेुेु अिधवा उप थत । करण आरोप तक)) हेतुे ु िनयत हैै।
आरोप केे कम पर अिभयोजन एवंं अिभयुु केे अिधवा को सुनाु गया। अिभयुु क ओर सेे धारा-294 द..सं.ं केे तहत अिभयोजन प. केे #कसी भी द तावेजे को वीकार नह/ंं #कया गया।
अिभलेखे का परशीलन #कया गया।
अिभयोग प2 एवंं उसकेे साथ तुतु #कयेे गयेे लेख3े का परशीलन करनेे एवंं इस िनिम5 अिभयुु केे अिधवा एवंं अिभयोजन केे िनवेदने क सुनवाईु करनेे पर 7यायालय क यह राय हैै #क अिभयुु आ#द$य कुमारु नेे थम 89या भा.द.सं..ं क धारा 420, 467, 468, 471 केे अतंग)तं ) द:डनीय अपराध कारत #कया हैै। अतएव उ धाराओंं केे अ7तग)त) आरोप <वरिचत #कयेे जाकर अिभयुु को पढ़कर सुनायाु एवंं समझाया गया। अिभयुु नेे अपराध अ वीकार करतेे हुयेु े <वचारण #कयेे जानेे का दावा #कया। उसका अिभवाक्् लेखबAे #कया गया। ली पर
अिभयुु केे ह ता.र करायेे गयेे।
अितर लोक अिभयोजक Bारा Cय #कया गया। #क वेे आज ह/ मामलेे मDD साEय <वचारण काय)Fम) तुतु कर दDगेD े।
करण अिभयोजन साEय हेतुे ु िनयत #कया जाता हैै।
* <वचारण काय)कम) अनुसारु सा.ी क0-1 सेे 3 को समंसं जार/ कर आहूतू
#कया जायेे। करण अिभयोजन साEय हेतुे ु #दनांकं 03.01. 2024 को पेशे हो। "
*****
8. This Court has in the case of Sanjay Jatav v. State of Madhya Pradesh through the Police Station Berasiya and another, in Criminal Revision No. 1130 of 2026 dtd.06.04.2026 (at Jabalpur), placing reliance on the decisions in the case of Century Spinning and Manufacturing Co. Ltd & Ors. vs. The State of Maharashtra, (1972) 3 SCC 282; Dilawar Balu Kurane vs. State of Maharashtra, (2002) 2 SCC 135; Ghulam Hassan Beigh vs. Mohammad Maqbool Magrey and others, (2022) 12 SCC 657; Rajneesh Kumar Soni vs. State of M.P., 2019 CrLJ 3515; Vinod Bohare vs. State of M.P., (2015) 2 MPLJ (Cri) 358; Kamla Shankar Nagda vs. State Of
3
Rajasthan,Through Pp, 2026 Supreme (Raj) 159; Pawan Kumar vs. State of Rajasthan, 2025 Supreme (Online) (RAJ) 1907; Ashok Bhadauria vs. State, 2016 Supreme (Del) 4389; Smt. Mewati Devi And Another vs. State of U.P. and Another, 2024 SCC OnLine All 1050, and Param Pal Singh Gandhi vs. The State of Bihar, 2016 SCC OnLine Pat 10209, held as under :
"23. However, from the aforesaid discussion/settled legal position it is evident that at the stage of framing of charge, the trial court is not required to pass a detailed or elaborate order as is expected at the stage of final adjudication. At the same time, the order cannot be passed in a mechanical manner. The court is required to apply its judicial mind to the material placed on record, including the charge-sheet and the documents produced by the prosecution, and to sift the same to a limited extent for the purpose of ascertaining whether a prima facie case is made out against the accused. The trial court is not obliged to assign detailed reasons while framing charges; however, the order must reflect that the court has formed its opinion on the basis of the material available on record. Such material, forming the basis of the satisfaction of the court, ought to be indicated in the order itself so as to demonstrate that the court has duly considered the record and has arrived at the conclusion that there are sufficient grounds to proceed against the accused and make him stand trial.
24. It is also apt to mention here that in revisional jurisdiction, the Court is empowered to call for and examine the records of any proceeding for the limited purpose of satisfying itself as to the correctness, legality, or propriety of any finding, sentence or order, and the regularity of the proceedings of the subordinate court. However, in my considered opinion this exercise of jurisdiction necessarily implies the existence of findings recorded by the court below. Where the subordinate court has failed to record necessary findings or has omitted to apply its judicial mind upon material issues, the revisional court cannot undertake an independent appreciation of evidence or substitute its own conclusions in the absence of such findings. In such circumstances, the proper course for the revisional court is to remand the matter back to the trial court for recording findings, as in the absence of such findings the revisional court cannot effectively exercise its jurisdiction. This is because the revisional jurisdiction is supervisory in nature and is not intended to convert itself into a court of first instance.
25. In view of the aforesaid settled legal position about framing of charge and in absence of any finding indicating recording of satisfaction/application of mind while framing the charge, this court has no option but to set aside the impugned order framing the charge and to remand the same to the court below for fresh consideration in
4
(DWARKA DHISH BANSAL)
JUDGE
the light of aforesaid settled legal position."
9. Apparently, aforesaid binding and settled legal position, has not been followed by the Court below while passing the impugned order in the instant case also.
10. Resultantly, the criminal revision succeeds and is hereby allowed and by setting aside the impugned order, matter is remanded to the Court below for passing order afresh in the light of aforesaid settled legal position, without being influenced by this order.
11. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand closed.
KPS
5