Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Smt. Seema Hitesh Khandelwal (informant), filed a criminal writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dated 13.10.2020 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Amravati, discharging accused No.5, Smt. Laxmi Hemant Pangarkar, from Crime No.29 of 2013 registered at City Kotwali Police Station, Amravati, for offences under Sections 420, 467, 471, 472 read with Section 34 and Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The informant was married to Hitesh Khandelwal, who died on 27.10.2009. She later married Manish Khuteta on 04.12.2012. The crime involved eight accused, including accused No.1 (brother of deceased Hitesh), accused No.2 (mother of Hitesh), and accused No.5 (a practicing advocate and notary public). The informant alleged that after her husband's death, she was entitled to a share in the joint family property. To divest her of her share, the accused conspired and forged a will deed dated 16.01.2009 purportedly executed by her father-in-law, Ratanlal Khandelwal, who was admitted to the ICU of Dr. Patankar Hospital on 10.01.2009 in a paralyzed and comatose state, on a ventilator, and died on 29.01.2009 without regaining consciousness. The will was allegedly prepared while Ratanlal was unconscious. Investigation prima facie revealed forgery of the will by all accused to cheat the informant. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate discharged accused No.5 (notary) on the ground that there was no prima facie case against her. The informant challenged this order. The High Court held that at the stage of framing of charge, the court is required to consider only the prima facie case and not to weigh the evidence meticulously. The court found that there was strong suspicion that the notary, by attesting the will of a person who was in coma and on ventilator, had committed the offences. The court set aside the discharge order and directed the trial court to frame charges against accused No.5 and proceed with the trial in accordance with law.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 227 - Discharge - Standard of Proof - At the stage of framing of charge, the court is required to consider only the prima facie case and not to weigh the evidence meticulously - Held that if there is strong suspicion that the accused has committed an offence, charge must be framed (Paras 10-12). B) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 420, 467, 471, 472, 34, 120B - Forgery of Will - Conspiracy - Notary's Role - Allegation that notary attested a will of a person who was in coma and on ventilator - Prima facie evidence of conspiracy to cheat the widow - Held that the notary cannot be discharged at the threshold as her role in attesting the forged will requires trial (Paras 5-9, 13-15).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate was justified in discharging accused No.5 (notary) from the offences punishable under Sections 420, 467, 471, 472 read with Section 34 and Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, at the stage of framing of charge.
Final Decision
The High Court allowed the writ petition, set aside the order dated 13.10.2020 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Amravati, discharging accused No.5, and directed the trial court to frame charges against accused No.5 and proceed with the trial in accordance with law.
Law Points
- Discharge under Section 227 CrPC
- Prima facie case
- Conspiracy
- Forgery of will
- Notary's role
- Standard of proof at charge stage
