Telangana High Court
V. Srinivasulu Reddy vs The State Of Telangana And Another on 7 June, 2024
THE HON'BLE SMT JUSTICE K. SUJANA
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.8031 OF 2022
ORDER :
This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 by the petitioner/accused No.2 (A.2) to quash the proceedings against him in C.C.No.1323 of 2017 on the file of X-Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Secunderabad. The offences alleged against him are under Sections 468, 471, 420, 120-B and 406 of the Indian Penal Code. (for short 'IPC').
2. The facts of the case are that on 13.8.2010 Lw.1-Deputy Educational Officer, lodged a complaint to the police stating that she got information that appointing authority for verification of genuineness certificate of VII Class Common Examination issued by Sri Durga High School, Laxminagar, Lalapet, Secunderabad, as they have issued the certificates of VII Class Common examination by tampering the School Admission Register and Central Marks Register issued to the School by the Office of the District Education Officer, Hyderabad. The candidates mentioned at page No.11 of petition are inserted in the admission register at a later date at the bottom of the pages by tampering the records such as 2 Sl.No.289 is repeated in next page i.e., in page No.17, Sl.No.450 is repeated in next page i.e., in page No.26, Sl.No.862 is repeated in next page i.e., in page No.49, Sl.No.432/1 is at the bottom of the page No.24, Sl.No.538/1 is at the bottom of the page No.30, that all the candidate names and their father names are written in the Central Marks register of VII Class common examination by tampering the earlier entries and also the marks against the candidates. In this connection Lw.1 suspected that a racket is going on in issuing fake certificates for VII Class by tampering the school records and marks record, so that the candidates could get jobs which are reserved for Scheduled caste and Scheduled Tribe communities. It is also stated that one V.Srinivasulu Reddy has done attestation over the certificates with different designations and he himself has filled application for jobs and signed on the same. As such, the 2nd respondent requested to take necessary action against the Management of Sri Durga High School. Basing on the said complaint the police registered Cr.No.93 of 2010 for the offences punishable under Sections 468 and 471 of IPC and after completion of investigation, the police filed charge sheet for the offences under Section 468, 471, 420, 120-B of IPC.
3
3. Heard Sri J.Sudheer, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri S.Ganesh, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent-State.
4. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner while working in the capacity of P.S. to Secretary, he has attested the documents over the certificates in the same designation i.e.,P.S. to Secretary and not with any different designation as alleged by the prosecution in the charge sheet; that there is no evidence that petitioner himself has filled the application for jobs and signed on the same; that the allegations in the complaint do not disclose any fraudulent and dishonest intention on the part of petitioner to cheat, as such, no provisions of cheating are attracted. For an offence to be made out under Section 420 of IPC there must be fraud or dishonest intention to deceive some person. The duty of petitioner is only to attest the documents without going into the genuineness of the same. It is further contended that the petitioner joined duty as P.S. to Secretary to Government, GAD, hence, he has attested the certificates in the same capacity. In the year 2009, he worked as personal Secretary to Secretary to Government and now he has been promoted to the Post of Deputy Secretary. If really petitioner has involved in illegal activities, he would not have been promoted. 4
5. The further contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that accused No.3 along with another filed W.P.No.25819 of 2009 before this Court and this Court while allowing the writ petition directed the respondents therein to complete the steps for appointing the petitioners therein as Attenders in pursuance of the selection within two months from that date. The Government has challenged the said order by filing W.A.No.826 of 2013 and the same was dismissed. Subsequently, the Government directed the Commissioner of Collegiate Education to implement the order of this Court and conditional appointment letters were issued to the petitioners therein. Inspite of the orders of this Court in favour of the petitioners therein, during the course of investigation A.3 was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 21.01.2016 and the petitioner herein obtained anticipatory bail from this Court vide Crl.P.No.902 of 2016. There is no intention to cheat anybody and the petitioner simply attested the documents as he is under the impression that the originals are genuine. As such, no offence can be attracted against the petitioner. His further contention is that the attesting authority should see the original document and attest the same, he is no way concerned whether the documents are fake or original. The petitioner herein is only an attestor of documents and no way connected to the alleged forgery and 5 fabrication of the documents. Hence, prayed this Court to quash the proceedings.
6. On the other hand, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor would submit that petitioner is the only person to attest all the documents which are alleged to be fake documents. The allegation against the petitioner is that he attested the documents in various capacities. Though petitioner denied the same, no document is filed to show that he attested all the documents with the same designation. As such, prayed the Court to dismiss the petition.
7. Having regard to the rival submissions made and the material placed on record, it is seen that the offences alleged against the petitioner is under Section 468 and 471 of IPC. Though petitioner contended that he has attested the document in the capacity of Gazetted officer i.e.,Personal Secretary to Secretary to Government, he do not know anything about the fake documents racket and he attested the documents believing the same to be genuine, whereas the allegation against the petitioner is that he attested the documents with various designations and the same was denied by the petitioner. A perusal of the attested documents filed by the petitioner vide I.A.No.1 of 2024 would show that the designation is same but the stamp of departments is different. Though, petitioner attested the documents to be 6 genuine, the allegations are severe in nature and the allegation of attestation on fake documents requires trial. At this stage, the order in the Writ petition giving direction to the Government to give appointment order to A.3 and other person is no way helpful to the petitioner.
8. However, to quash the proceedings under Section 482 of Cr.P.C, the Court has to see whether the averments in the complaint prima facie shows that it constitute the offence as alleged by the Police.
9. At this stage, it is pertinent to note the Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Surendra Kori 1, wherein, in paragraph No.14 it is held as follows:
"The High Court in exercise of its powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. does not function as a Court of appeal or revision. This Court has, in several judgments, held that the inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C., though wide, has to be used sparingly, carefully and with caution. The High Court, under Section 482 Cr.P.C., should normally refrain from giving a prima facie decision in a case where the entire facts are incomplete and hazy, more so when the evidence has not been collected and produced before the Court and the issues involved, 1 (2012) 10 Supreme Court Cases 155 7 whether factual or legal, are of wide magnitude and cannot be seen in their true perspective without sufficient material."
10. In view of the above discussion as well as the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Madhya Pradesh (supra), this Court does not find any merit in this criminal petition to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.1323 of 2017 on the file of X-Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Secunderabad against the petitioner and the same is liable to be dismissed.
11. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is dismissed. Miscellaneous applications, if any, pending shall stand closed.
__________________ K. SUJANA, J Date :07.06.2024 Rds