SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Prateek Agrawal vs Dr. Bhupendra Soni 59 … on 15 May, 2018




CRMP No. 947 of 2018

• Prateek Agrawal S/o Shri Ram Narayan Agrawal Aged About 31 Years R/o
Vivekanand Colony, Gully No. 03, Tahsil And District Dhamtari Chhattisgarh

—- Petitioner


• Dr. Bhupendra Soni S/o Late Bhuvneshwar Soni Aged About 41 Years R/o
H/87, Sinchayee Colony, Gangrel, Tahsil And District Dhamtari Chhattisgarh

—- Respondent

For Petitioner : Shri S. Dewangan, Advocate
For Respondent : Shri Sangharsh Pandey, Advocate

Hon’ble Shri Justice Goutam Bhaduri

Order On Board


1. Heard.

2. The present petition is against the order dated 12.02.2018 passed in

Criminal Revision No.67/16, whereby the charge framed under Section 406

IPC by the JMFC, Dhamtari was affirmed.

3. The facts of this case are that a complaint was made under Sections 419,

420, 465, 467, 468 506 II IPC by the respondent that the petitioner

entered into an agreement for construction of the house and for that an

amount of Rs.26,02,451/- was received but neither the construction was

carried out nor the amount was returned. Thereby the criminal breach of

trust was committed.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the case is of civil nature and

no criminal breach of trust has been committed, therefore, the charge so

framed against the petitioner may be set aside.

5. Prima facie it appears that the Court after evaluating the evidence framed

the charge that after taking money the petitioner has deliberately not

discharged the obligation and has dishonestly misappropriated the amount

and spent the same for his own use.

6. As has been laid down in the case of State of Rajasthan v. Fatehkaran

Mehdu, reported in AIR 2017 SC 796 it is stated that at the stage of

framing of a charge, the Court is concerned not with the proof of the

allegation rather it has to focus on the material and form an opinion whether

there is strong suspicion that the accused has committed an offence, which

if put to trial, could prove his guilt. The framing of charge is not a stage, at

which stage final test of guilt is to be applied.

7. Applying the aforesaid principles in this case after going through the charge

sheet and the documents annexed thereto, at this stage, the defence

adduced by the petitioner cannot be accepted as gospel truth. The same

has to be decided on the floor of the Court during evidence while they are

tested by virtue of examination and cross examination.

8. Therefore, in view of the forgoing discussion, I am not inclined to interfere

with the order of framing of charge at this stage. Accordingly, the petition is



(Goutam Bhaduri)


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Copyright © 2021 SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Free Legal Help, Just WhatsApp Away

MyNation HELP line

We are Not Lawyers, but No Lawyer will give you Advice like We do

Please read Group Rules – CLICK HERE, If You agree then Please Register CLICK HERE and after registration  JOIN WELCOME GROUP HERE

We handle Women Centric biased laws like False Sectioin 498A IPC, Domestic Violence(DV ACT), Divorce, Maintenance, Alimony, Child Custody, HMA 24, 125 CrPc, 307, 312, 313, 323, 354, 376, 377, 406, 420, 497, 506, 509; TEP, RTI and many more…

MyNation FoundationMyNation FoundationMyNation Foundation