2025:CGHC:52089 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 3130 of 2025 Ajit Kumar Singh S/o Late Vijay Shankar Singh Aged About 46 Years R/o Ambikapur Nehru Ward, Thana And Tahsil Ambikapur, District - Sarguja, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station Jhilmili, District - Surajpur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Ramchandra Thakur S/o Late R.S. Thakur R/o Darripara, Ambikapur, District Surguja Chhattisgarh (Complainant) ... Respondents (Cause title is taken from the CIS) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ For Petitioner : Shri Manoj Paranjpe, Senior Advocate with Shri Shashwat Mishra, Advocate For Respondent/State : Shri SK Pandey, Dy AG ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Hon'ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal Order on Board 17.10.2025 1. The petitioner has filed the present Criminal Miscellaneous Petition under Section 528 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, against the order dated 08-08-2025 passed by learned 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Surajpur, in Criminal Revision No. 37/2024, whereby the criminal revision filed by the petitioner has been dismissed and the order by the learned Trial Court, framing charge against the petitioner in Criminal Case No. 1685/2023 is affirmed. Digitally signed by V PADMAVATHI Date: 2025.12.09 10:34:27 +0530 Crmp 3130 of 2025 2 2. Brief facts of the case are that petitioner is an accused in Criminal Case No. 1685/2023 pending before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Surajpur, which arises out of Crime No. 04/2023, registered at Police Station Jhilmili, District Surajpur, (C.G.), for commission of offence under Section 420, and 34 of I.P.C. on the complaint made by the complainant Ramchandra Thakur, Nodal Officer, Jila Sahakari Kendriya Bank Maryadit, Ambikapur. It is alleged in the F.I.R. that the present petitioner and other accused persons have sanctioned loan to 71 beneficiaries worth Rs.1,88,59,000/- for the purposes of the ‘Gow-Palan’ and ‘Bufallow-Palan’ scheme, and thereby caused huge monetary loss to the bank. Police registered the offence, and after due investigation, charge-sheet has been filed before the learned trial court against the present petitioner and other accused persons, in which the petitioner is facing trial of the case. 3. During proceedings of the case, on 18-10-2024, the learned trial court framed the charge under Sections 420, 409, read with Section 34 of the IPC. The petitioner had challenged the order dated 18-10-2024 and the charge memo before the learned 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Surajpur, in Criminal Revision No. 37/2024, which has also been dismissed vide order dated 08-08-2025. The said order is under challenge in the present Criminal Miscellaneous petition. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that non- performance of the agreement to sell does not by itself amount to Crmp 3130 of 2025 3 cheating or breach of trust. The complainant has already filed a Civil suit for specific performance of the contract, which is pending for its consideration. The dispute is only Civil in nature, which is given the colour of criminality to create pressure upon the petitioner. Even if the entire material available in the charge-sheet is taken as it is, prima facie no offence appears to be made out against the petitioner to frame charge, and to proceed with the trial of the case. It is also submitted that the beneficiaries have submitted their applications before the Animal Husbandry Department, Surajpur, which, after its verification, forwarded it to Adim Jati Sewa Sahakari Samiti, Shivprasad Nagar. The petitioner was posted as Branch manager at Jila Sahakari Kendriya Bank, Bhaiyathan branch, at the time of the alleged commission of the offence, and he received the applications for grant of loan under the Cattle Loan Scheme from Adim jati Sewa Sahakari Samiti, Shivprasad Nagar, and not from the beneficiaries directly. He forwarded the loan applications to the higher authority at the head office for sanction of the loan amount. He would further submit that on the same set of allegations, the petitioner has been exonerated in the departmental inquiry (DE), and held that he has not committed any illegality or irregularity in disbursing the loan amount under the Cattle Loan Scheme. There is no specific allegation that the petitioner committed any fraud. Therefore, there is no sufficient material in the charge-sheet for framing of charge against the petitioner, and he may be discharged. Crmp 3130 of 2025 4 5. In support of his submissions, learned counsel for the petitioner would rely upon the judgment of “Randheer Singh v. State of U.P.”, 2021 (14) SCC 626, “Binod Kumar v. State of Bihar”, 2014 (10) SCC 663, “Usha Chakraborty v. State of W.B.”, 2023 (15) SCC 135, and “Vijaya Rao v. State of Rajasthan”, 2005 (7) SCC 69. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State opposes and has submitted that at the stage of framing of charge, prima facie material is to be considered, as to whether there is sufficient evidence to proceed with the trial, or not. The trial court is not required to examine the evidence on record meticulously, but to consider the prima facie material, and to proceed with the trial. From the statements of the witnesses and the inquiry report, there is sufficient material available on record to frame charge against the petitioner. Therefore, the petition does not have any merit and is liable to be dismissed. 7. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents annexed with the petition. 8. In a catena of decisions, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has laid down the principles about consideration of material available in the charge- sheet for framing of charge. 9. In the case of “State of M.P. vs. Deepak” 2019 (13) SCC 62, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that at the stage of framing of charge, Court has to consider the material only with a view to find out if there is Crmp 3130 of 2025 5 any ground for presuming that the accused had committed the offence. It is also held that the court is required to evaluate the material and documents on record with a view to find out if facts emerging therefrom, taken at their face value, disclose the existence of all the ingredients constituting the alleged offence, and at the stage of framing charge, the court is not required to appreciate the evidence on record, and consider the allegations on merits, and to find out on the basis of the evidence recorded is likely to be convicted or not. 10. In the matter of Deepak (Supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court in its judgment, has held that:- “16-It was also noted that at the stage of framing of charges, the Court has to consider the material only with a view to find out if there is a ground for “presuming” that the accused had committed the offence: “25. It is trite that at the stage of framing of charge, the court is required to evaluate the material and documents on record with a view to finding out if the facts emerging therefrom, taken at their face value, disclose the existence of all the ingredients constituting the alleged offence or offences. For this limited purpose, the court may sift the evidence as it cannot be expected even at the initial stage to accept as gospel truth all that the prosecution states. At this stage, the court has to consider the material only with a view to find out if there is ground for “presuming” that the accused has committed an offence and not for the purpose of arriving at the conclusion that it is not likely to lead to a conviction.” 17- A two-judge Bench of this Court, in Rajbir Singh v State of U P 8 noted that in 8 (2006) 4 SCC 51 accordance with Section 227, the High Court must ascertain whether there is “sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused” or there is ground for “presuming” that the offence has been committed. Justice G P Mathur held thus: Crmp 3130 of 2025 6 “9. In Stree Atyachar Virodhi Parishad v. Dilip Nathumal Chordia, the Court while examining the scope of Section 227 held as under: ‘14… Section 227 itself contains enough guidelines as to the scope of inquiry for the purpose of discharging an accused. It provides that ‘the judge shall discharge when he considers that there is no sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused’. The ‘ground’ in the context is not a ground for conviction, but a ground for putting the accused on trial. It is in the trial, the guilt or the innocence of the accused will be determined and not at the time of framing of charge. The court, therefore, need not undertake an elaborate inquiry in sifting and weighing the material. Nor is it necessary to delve deep into various aspects. All that the court has to consider is whether the evidentiary material on record, if generally accepted, would reasonably connect the accused with the crime.” 11. In the matter of “State by SP through the SPE, CBI vs. Uttamchand Bohra”, 2022 (16) SCC 663, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held in para 21 of its judgment that:- 21- In CBI v. K. Narayana Rao this Court, after reviewing the previous decisions that dealt with the question of the applicable standard relating to discharge of accused in a criminal case, summarized the principles in the Following terms:- “12. The first decision in Ramesh Singh relates to interpretation of Sections 227 and 228 of the Code for the considerations as to discharge the accused or to proceed with trial. Para 4 of the said judgment is pressed into service which reads as under:- 4. Under Section 226 of the Code while opening the case for the prosecution the Prosecutor has got to describe the charge against the accused and state by what evidence he proposes to prove the guilt of the accused. Thereafter Crmp 3130 of 2025 7 comes at the initial stage the duty of the Court to consider the record of the case and the documents submitted therewith and to hear the submissions of the accused and the prosecution in that behalf. The Judge has to pass thereafter an order either under Section 227 or Section 228 of the Code. If "the Judge considers that there is no sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused, he shall discharge the accused and record his reasons for so doing", as enjoined by Section 227. If, on the other hand, "the Judge is of opinion that there is ground for presuming that the accused has committed an offence which (b) is exclusively triable by the court, he shall frame in writing a charge against the accused", as provided in Section 228. Reading the two provisions together in juxtaposition, as they have got to be, it would be clear that at the beginning and the initial stage of the trial the truth, veracity and effect of the evidence which the Prosecutor proposes to adduce are not to be meticulously judged. Nor is any weight to be attached to the probable defence of the accused. It is not obligatory for the Judge at that stage of the trial to consider in any detail and weigh in a sensitive balance whether the facts, if proved, would be incompatible with the innocence of the accused or not. The standard of test and judgment which is to be finally applied before recording a finding regarding the guilt or otherwise of the accused is not exactly to be applied at the stage of deciding the matter under Section 227 or Section 228 of the Code. At that stage the Court is not to see whether there is sufficient ground for conviction of the accused or whether the trial is sure to end in his conviction. Strong suspicion against the accused, if the matter remains in the region of suspicion, cannot take the place of proof of his guilt at the conclusion of the trial. But at the initial stage if there is a strong suspicion which leads the Court to think that there is ground for presuming that the accused has committed an offence then it is not open to the Court to say that there is no sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. The presumption of the guilt of the accused which is to be drawn at the initial stage Crmp 3130 of 2025 8 is not in the sense of the law governing the trial of criminal cases in France where the accused is presumed to be guilty unless the contrary is proved. But it is only for the purpose of deciding prima facie whether the Court should proceed with the trial or not. If the evidence which the Prosecutor proposes to adduce to prove the guilt of the accused even if fully accepted before it is challenged in cross-examination or rebutted by the defence evidence, if any, cannot show that the accused committed the offence, then there will be no sufficient ground for proceeding with the trial. An exhaustive list of the circumstances to indicate as to what will lead to one conclusion or the other is neither possible nor advisable. We may just illustrate the difference of the law by one more example. If the scales of pan as to the guilt or innocence of the accused are something like even, at the conclusion of the trial, then, on the theory of benefit of doubt the case is to end in his acquittal. But if, on the other hand, it is so at the initial is to end inking an order under Section 227 or Section 228, then in such a situation ordinarily and generally the order which will have to be made will be one under Section 228 and not under Section 227. 13. Discharge of the accused under Section 227 of the Code was extensively considered by this Court in P. Vijayan wherein it was held as under:- ‘10…. If two views are possible and one of them gives rise to suspicion only, as distinguished from grave suspicion, the trial Judge will be empowered to discharge the accused and at this stage he is not to see whether the trial will end in conviction or acquittal. Further, the words "not sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused" clearly show that the Judge is not a mere post office to frame the charge at the behest of the prosecution, but has to exercise his judicial mind to the facts of the case in order to determine whether a case for trial has been made out by the prosecution. In assessing this fact, it is not necessary for the court to enter into the pros and cons of the matter or into a weighing and balancing of evidence and probabilities which is really the function of the court, after the trial starts. Crmp 3130 of 2025 9 11. At the stage of Section 227, the Judge has merely to sift the 9 evidence in order to find out whether or not there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. In other words, the sufficiency of ground would take within its fold the nature of the evidence recorded by the police or the documents produced before the court which ex facie disclose that there are suspicious circumstances against the accused so as to frame a charge against him.’ 14. While considering the very same provisions i.e. framing of charges and discharge of the accused, again in Sajjan Kumar, this Court held thus: - 19. It is clear that at the initial stage, if there is a strong suspicion which leads the court to think that there is ground for presuming that the accused has committed an offence, then it is not open to the court to say that there is no sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. The presumption of the guilt of the accused which is to be drawn at the initial stage is only for the purpose of deciding prima facie whether the court should proceed with the trial or not. If the evidence which the prosecution proposes to adduce proves the guilt of the accused even if fully accepted before it is challenged in cross- examination or rebutted by the defence evidence, if any, cannot show that the accused committed the offence, then there will be no sufficient ground for proceeding with the trial. 20. A Magistrate enquiring into a case under Section 209 CrPC is not to act as a mere post office and has to come to a conclusion whether the case before him is fit for commitment of the accused to the Court of Session. He is entitled to sift and weigh the materials on record, but only for seeing whether there is sufficient evidence for commitment, and not whether there is sufficient evidence for conviction. If there is no prima facie evidence or the evidence is totally unworthy of credit, it is the duty of the Magistrate to discharge the accused, on the other hand, if there is some evidence on which the conviction may reasonably be based, he must commit the case. It is also clear that in exercising jurisdiction under Section 227 CrPC, the Magistrate should not make a roving enquiry into the pros and cons of the matter and weigh the evidence as if he was conducting a trial. Crmp 3130 of 2025 10 Exercise of jurisdiction under Sections 227 and 228 CrPC 21. On consideration of the authorities about the scope of Sections 227 and 228 of the Code, the following principles emerge: (i) The Judge while considering the question of framing the charges under Section 227 CrPC has the undoubted power to sift and weigh the evidence for the limited purpose of finding out whether or not a prima facie case against the accused has been made out. The test to determine prima facie case would depend upon the facts of each case. (ii) Where the materials placed before the court disclose grave suspicion against the accused which has not been properly explained, the court will be fully justified in framing a charge and proceeding with the trial. (iii) The court cannot act merely as a post office or a a mouthpiece of the prosecution but has to consider the broad probabilities of the case, the total effect of the evidence and the documents produced before the court, any basic infirmities, etc. However, at this stage, there cannot be a roving enquiry into the pros and cons of the matter and weigh the evidence as if he was conducting a trial. (iv) If on the basis of the material on record, the court could form an opinion that the accused might have committed offende 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. (v) At the time of framing of the charges, the probative value of the material on record cannot be gone into but before framing a charge the court must apply its judicial mind on the material placed on record and must be satisfied that the commission of offence by the accused was possible. (vi) At the stage of Sections 227 and 228, the court is required to evaluate the material and documents on record with a view to find out if the facts emerging Crmp 3130 of 2025 11 therefrom taken at their face value disclose the existence of all the ingredients constituting the alleged offence. For this limited purpose, sift the evidence as it cannot be expected even at that initial stage to accept all that the prosecution states as gospel truth even if it is opposed to common sense or the broad probabilities of the case. (vii) If two views are possible and one of them gives rise to suspicion only, as distinguished from grave suspicion, the trial Judge will be empowered to discharge the accused and at this stage, he is not to see whether the trial will end in conviction or acquittal.” 12. In the matter of Manjit Singh Virdi vs. Hussain Mohammad Shattaf 2023 (7) SCC 633, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held in para 12 of its judgment that:- 12- The law on the point has been summarised in a recent judgment of this Court in State of Rajasthan v. Ashok Kumar Kashyap2. Relevant paras are extracted below: - “11.1. In P. Vijayan v. State of Kerala, (2010) 2 SCC 398, this Court had an occasion to consider Section 227 CrPC What is required to be considered at the time of framing of the charge and/or considering the discharge application has been considered elaborately in the said decision. It is observed and held that at the stage of Section 227, the Judge has merely to sift the evidence in order to find out whether or not there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. It is observed that in other words, the sufficiency of grounds would take within its fold the nature of the evidence recorded by the police or the documents produced before the court which ex facie disclose that there are suspicious circumstances against the accused so as to frame a charge against him. It is further observed that if the Judge comes to a conclusion that there is sufficient ground to proceed, he will frame a charge under Section 228 CrPC, if not, he will discharge the accused. It is further observed that while exercising its judicial mind to the facts of the case in order to 2 (2021) 11 SCC 191 Criminal Appeal No. 1399 Crmp 3130 of 2025 12 of 2023 determine whether a case for trial has been made out by the prosecution, it is not necessary for the court to enter into the pros and cons of the matter or into a weighing and balancing of evidence and probabilities which is really the function of the court, after the trial starts. 11.2. In the recent decision of this Court in State of Karnataka v. M.R. Hiremath, (2019) 7 SCC 515, one of us (D.Y. Chandrachud, J.) speaking for the Bench has observed and held in para 25 as under: - “25. The High Court [M.R. Hiremath v. State, 2017 SCC OnLine Kar 4970] ought to have been cognizant of the fact that the trial court was dealing with an application for discharge under the provisions of Section 239 CrPC. The parameters which govern the exercise of this jurisdiction have found expression in several decisions of this Court. It is a settled principle of law that at the stage of considering an application for discharge the court must proceed on the assumption that the material which has been brought on the record by the prosecution is true and evaluate the material in order to determine whether the facts emerging from the material, taken on its face value, disclose the existence of the ingredients necessary to constitute the offence. In State of T.N. v. N. Suresh Rajan, (2014) 11 SCC 709, Criminal Appeal No. 1399 of 2023 adverting to the earlier decisions on the subject, this Court held:- “29. … At this stage, probative value of the materials has to be gone into and the court is not expected to go deep into the matter and hold that the materials would not warrant a conviction. In our opinion, what needs to be considered is whether there is a ground for presuming that the offence has been committed and not whether a ground for convicting the accused has Crmp 3130 of 2025 13 been made out. To put it differently, if the court thinks that the accused might have committed the offence on the basis of the materials on record on its probative value, it can frame the charge; though for conviction, the court has to come to the conclusion that the accused has committed the offence. The law does not permit a mini trial at this stage.” 13. In the case of N. Sundaram Vs. P.K. Pounraj and Another reported in (2014) 10 SCC 616, the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in paragraph 13, has held that: “13. It is well settled by this Court in a catena of cases that the power under Section 482 CrPC has to be exercised sparingly and cautiously to prevent the abuse of process of any court and to secure the ends of justice. [See State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal] The inherent power should not be exercised to stifle a legitimate prosecution. The High Court should refrain from giving a prima facie decision unless there are compelling circumstances to do so. Taking the allegations and the complaint as they were, without adding or subtracting anything, if no offence was made out, only then the High Court would be justified in quashing the proceedings in the exercise of its power under Section 482 CrPC. [See MCD Vs. Ram Kishann Rohtagi7] An investigation should not be shut out at the threshold if the allegations have some substance.” [See Vinod Raghuvanshi Vs. Ajay Arora8] 14. The Hon’ble supreme Court has further held in para 12 of its judgement in the case of State of Gujarat vs. Dilipsinh Kishorsinh Rao, 2023 SCC Online SC 1294, that:- Crmp 3130 of 2025 14 “12. The primary consideration at the stage of framing of charge is the test of existence of a prima-facie case, and at this stage, the probative value of materials on record need not be gone into. This Court by referring to its earlier decisions in the State of Maharashtra Vs. Som Nath Thapa (1996) 4 SCC 659 and the State of MP Vs. Mohan Lal Soni (2000) 6 SCC 338 as held the nature of evaluation to be made by the court at the stage of framing of the charge is to test the existence of prima-facie case. It is also held at the stage of framing of charge, the court has to form a presumptive opinion to the existence of factual ingredients constituting the offence alleged and it is not expected to go deep into probative value of the material on record and to check whether the material on record would certainly lead to conviction at the conclusion of trial.” 15. In the matter of State (NCT of Delhi) vs. Shiv Charan Bansal and Others, 2020 (2) SCC 290, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that at the stage of framing of charge, the trial court is not required to conduct meticulous appreciation of the evidence or a roving inquiry into the same, and has the power to sift and weigh the evidence for the limited purpose of finding out whether or not a prima facie case is made out against the accused to proceed with the trial. 16. In view of the aforesaid law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, when this court examines the material available in the charge- sheet, it is found that there is an inquiry report dated 29-12-2022 submitted by the inquiry committee constituted by the District Collector, Surajpur, in which the involvement and collusion of the petitioner with Crmp 3130 of 2025 15 other accused persons in disbursing loan under the Cattle Loan Scheme beyond their entitlement on the basis of forged documents is reported. It is also reported that due to act of the accused persons, the bank incurred loss of about Rs. 1,88,59,000/-. From the statement of Ramchandra Thakur, Sunil Kumar Verma, Dr. Chandrakant Singh, Dr. Dilip Kumar Paikra, Girija Shankar Sahu, Shibu Epen, Gourishankar Sharma, Sagar Singh, who are the officers conducting the inquiry, and also from the statements of beneficiaries, in whose name the loan was sanctioned, ample prima facie evidence available in the charge-sheet against the petitioner to frame charge and to proceed with the trial of the case. Whether or not he would be acquitted or convicted is the subject matter of the trial. 17. The judgment cited by learned counsel for the petitioner is distinguishable from the facts and consideration of the present case, therefore, no benefit could be extended to him from the above cited judgments. 18. In the present case, after considering the material annexed with the charge-sheet and evidence available on record, the trial court rightly comes to the conclusion that there is sufficient ground for framing the charge, and to proceed with the trial, and has framed the charges of Sections 420 and 409 read with Section 34 of IPC, which cannot be said to be either perverse or contrary to the facts of the case, calling for an Crmp 3130 of 2025 16 interference invoking jurisdiction under Section 482 of CrPC conferred upon this court. 19. In the result, petition does not have any merit, and the same is liable to and it is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) JUDGE padma