In a significant ruling, Justice Saurabh Lavania of the Allahabad High Court has held that the presence of the Investigating Officer (IO) is not mandatory at the stage of framing charges in a criminal case. The decision came while dismissing an application filed by the petitioner Kalavati Devi under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), challenging the orders of the trial and revisional courts.
Background of the Case
The case stems from allegations of cheating under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) against Kalavati Devi, a former village head (Gram Pradhan) of Jethauti Kurmiyan, District Barabanki. The complaint, filed by one Baldev Singh, alleged that Kalavati Devi had improperly verified an affidavit submitted by Chandra Prakash Vishwakarma, falsely declaring himself as homeless to avail benefits under the Pradhan Mantri Awas Yojana (PMAY). Subsequent investigations revealed that Vishwakarma owned a house in another village, leading to accusations of fraud.
Kalavati Devi’s discharge application under Section 239 CrPC was initially rejected by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Barabanki, on March 15, 2023. This decision was later upheld by the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Barabanki, in a criminal revision petition (No. 94/2023) on November 23, 2024. Aggrieved by these rulings, Kalavati Devi approached the Allahabad High Court seeking relief under Section 482 CrPC.
Legal Issues Involved
The case primarily revolved around the following legal questions:
Whether the presence of the Investigating Officer is necessary at the stage of framing charges.
Whether the petitioner, as a Gram Pradhan, could be held liable under Section 420 IPC for merely verifying an affidavit.
Whether the evidence presented by the prosecution prima facie supported the charges framed against the petitioner.
Court’s Observations and Judgment
Justice Saurabh Lavania, while dismissing the petition, reiterated the settled principle that at the stage of framing charges, the presence of the Investigating Officer is not mandatory. The court observed:
“At the stage of framing charges, the court is only required to consider the materials placed before it to determine whether a prima facie case exists. The personal presence of the Investigating Officer is not a pre-requisite for this determination.”
The court further held that the charges against the petitioner were sustainable since the allegations pointed towards her involvement in an act of misrepresentation, even if indirectly. The judge emphasized that while the petitioner may not have directly benefited from the alleged fraud, her actions in verifying the affidavit could not be dismissed outright.
Key Takeaways from the Judgment
No Necessity for IO’s Presence: The ruling clarifies that at the stage of framing charges, the court does not need the Investigating Officer’s presence to proceed with the case.
Prima Facie Evidence Sufficient for Charges: The court reiterated that the test at the stage of framing charges is not whether the accused is ultimately guilty, but whether there is sufficient material to proceed with the trial.
Role of Public Officials in Verification Process: The case highlights the responsibility of public officials, including Gram Pradhans, in ensuring the authenticity of documents they verify.
Arguments by the Counsels
Senior Advocates Sharad Pathak and Gaurav Shukla represented the petitioner, contending that mere verification of an affidavit does not constitute cheating under Section 420 IPC. They argued that the investigation failed to establish any dishonest intention on part of Kalavati Devi.
On the other hand, Additional Government Advocate Alok Kumar Tiwari, representing the State, contended that the petitioner had played a key role in facilitating the fraudulent act and, therefore, could not claim discharge from the proceedings.
