Virendra Saran, J. - (1.) -Mridul Kumar Dwivedi, a practising Advocate at Hardoi has preferred this application under Section 482, Cr. P.C. for quashing criminal proceedings against him under Section 205/417/419/420/467/ 468/120B, I.P.C. pending against him in the Court of C.J.M., Hardoi, who on 1.4.1997 has ordered framing of charges against the applicant.
(2.) THE prosecution case against the applicant is that the applicant in his capacity as an advocate identified one Krishna Pal Singh who stood surety in a criminal case. Subsequently, it was revealed that the person who filed the surety bond was not Krishna Pal Singh but Brijeshwar (co-accused). At the stage of framing of charges, the applicant pleaded that he identified the surety bona fidely on the basis of papers produced by the surety including copy of Khataunis which satisfied the applicant that the person coming forward as surety was in fact Krishna Pal Singh. The plea of the applicant did not find favour with the learned Magistrate, who by means of the impugned order dated 1.4.1997 directed that the charges be framed. Hence the applicant has come up to this Court. I have heard Sri Rakeshwar Prasad, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Brijendra Singh, learned Government Advocate.
(3.) I have given my anxious considerations to the points raised by learned counsel on either side. The prosecution case is that since the applicant in conspiracy with Brijeshwar wrongly identified Brijeshwar as Krishna Pal Singh, he was guilty of the offence under Section 205/417/419/420/467/468, I.P.C. with the aid of Section 120B, I.P.C. Thus the point which needs reflection is whether ingredients of the offence of criminal conspiracy are spelled out against the applicant from the material in possession of the prosecution which if, unrebutted, would result in his conviction. The prosecution stakes its case on the wrong identification of Krishna Pal Singh by the applicant but in my view, mere wrong identification is not per se evidence of criminal conspiracy. Beyond the evidence of wrong identification, there is nothing else to fasten the guilt of the applicant. It is common knowledge that at the district level, very often lawyers identify sureties. It is not always possible to personally know all the persons coming forward as sureties. Lawyers sometimes identify a surety on the basis of papers in possession of the surety by which they are satisfied that the person coming forward as surety is that person.;