Himanshu Makwana vs. The State Of Madhya Pradesh

Held

The Court held that the material collected during the investigation satisfied the standard of a prima facie case required for framing charges against the revision petitioner. Specifically, the victim's statement indicated that the petitioner showed him photographs of scrap and weight slips from his mobile, leading the victim to invest money based on this information. The seizure memo also revealed copies of 18 weight slips recovered from a co-accused. The Court found that the petitioner's contention that his mobile was not recovered did not entitle him to discharge, especially as it was alleged he destroyed it. The Court concluded that the contentions of the petitioner did not find support from the cited judgments. Therefore, the findings of the learned trial court did not warrant interference, and the revision petition was dismissed.

Facts

The petitioner, Himanshu Makwana, filed a criminal revision challenging an order dated June 25, 2025, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Sanwer, District Indore. This order framed charges under Sections 420, 120-B, 409, 468, and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) against the petitioner and co-accused in Crime No. 78/2025. The case originated from a complaint alleging that co-accused registered a firm named "Indian Scrap" with GST, solicited investments, and misappropriated funds by purchasing property in their names, duping investors. The petitioner, an accountant at a trader's godown, allegedly conspired with the co-accused by forwarding photographs of weigh slips of scrap goods from his mobile to create a false impression of a genuine scrap business.

Key Issues

1. Whether the framing of charges under Section 420 read with 120-B, 409 read with 120-B, 468 read with 120-B, and 120-B of the IPC against the revision petitioner is justified, considering the material on record and the principles for framing charges under Section 227 of the Cr.P.C. (now Section 250 of BNSS, 2023)? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner contended that the investigation was unfair, unjust, and partial. He argued that there was no material to put him on trial, no forgery or fabrication of documents was found in his possession or on his mobile, and the charges were false. He asserted that the essential ingredients for offences under Sections 420, 409, 468, 120-B, and 201 of IPC were lacking, and the final report contained no evidence against him. Reliance was placed on Dilawar Babu Kurane vs. State of Maharashtra, Yogesh @ Sachin Jagdish Joshi vs. State of Maharashtra, and Union of India vs. Prafulla Kumar Samal and Another. Revenue's arguments: The State opposed the prayer for discharge.