Jesus @ Pranjal S/O Ramesh Waghale ... vs State Of Mha. Thr. Pso Ps Belatrodi ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 2065 Bom

                                 1



         IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                   NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.

         CRIMINAL APPLICATION (APL) NO. 1567 OF 2022

         Jesus @ Pranjal s/o Ramesh Waghale,
         aged about 36 years, Occ. Doctor, R/o
         Flat No. 301, Orange Blossom, Omka
         Nagar, Nagpur, Presently residing at
         California City Los Angeles 245 W
         Loraine st. Glendale CA 91202, Through
         its Power of Attorney Shir. Dr. Ramesh
         S/o Natthuji Waghale, aged about 72
         years, Occ. Doctor, R/o Flot No.301,
         Orange Blossom, Omkar Nagar, Nagpur.
                                                  ... APPLICANT

                              VERSUS


   1.    State of Maharashtra, through Police
         Station Officer, Police Station,
         Belatroadi, Nagpur.

   2.    Chandrakant s/o Mahdeo Yadav,
         aged about 57 years, Occ. Service,
         Inspector Officer in Charge, Police
         Station, Belatroadi, R/o C/o Police
         Station Belatroadi, Nagpur.

                                                ... NON-APPLICANTS

_____________________________________________________________
       Shri Amol Shripad Deshpande, Advocate for the applicant.
       Shri S.S. Doifode, Additional Public Prosecutor for the non-
       applicant/State.
______________________________________________________________
                                    2



           CORAM : VINAY JOSHI AND VALMIKI SA MENEZES, JJ.

DATED : 02/03/2023.

ORAL JUDGMENT : (Per : Vinay Joshi, J.)

Heard. ADMIT.

2. The matter is taken up for final hearing by consent of

learned Counsel appearing for the respective parties.

3. Unusual fact emerges in this application for quashing the

First Information Report (FIR) in Crime No. 97 of 2022 registered with

the Beltarodi Police Station, Nagpur City for the offence punishable

under Sections 419, 170, 177, 182 and 189 of the Indian Penal Code

(IPC) and related charge-sheet bearing R.C.C. No.152 of 2022.

4. The crime was registered at the instance of the report

lodged by the Police Inspector Chandrakant Yadav attached to the

Beltarodi Police Station. The facts in brief are that, the informant

Police Inspector was entrusted with the investigation of Crime No.474

of 2021 registered against one Priya Vairagade. On 08.03.2022, the

applicant (accused) went to the Police Station and introduced himself

as the Secretary of IAS Officer Arvind Shrivastav attached to the

Secretariate Prime Minister's Office (PM Office), New Delhi. He met the

informant in connection with Crime No.474 of 2021 registered against

one Kamini @ Priya Vairagade. The accused by posing himself as a

Secretary of high ranking officer had asked the informant to be soft

against Priya Vairagade in the investigation of Crime No.474 of 2021.

The accused stated that the investigation shall be carried in the manner

so as to exclude Priya Vairagade from the crime. He has also stated

about his connections with the PM Office, New Delhi and threatened

that he can do anything against the police.

5. The informant stated that, later on, he received a phone-

call from the office of the Assistant Police Commissioner, Ajani Division,

Nagpur informing the same thing. It was conveyed that the accused

also went to the Commissionerate Office and asked them to see that

Priya Vairagade, who is his relative, shall be exonerated from crime.

Similarly, on 20.01.2022, the informant received telephonic message

from the Joint Police Commissioner, Zone-4 Nagpur, where also the

accused went and posing himself as a Secretary attached to the PM

Office, New Delhi, asked to delete Priya Vairagade from the crime.

6. On preliminary inquiry, it was learnt that the accused

namely Jesus @ Pranjal Waghale was neither in government service nor

does have any connection with the PM Office, New Delhi. The Police

realized that the accused has tried to influence by personation. The

Police tried to contact accused, but he did not respond, therefore, the

report.

7. Learned Counsel for the applicant submitted that the

accused has no concern with Priya Vairagade. The accused is medical

practitioner settled abroad. It has been submitted that the contents of

the FIR even if taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety,

do not prima facie constitute the offences charged. The essential

ingredients to constitute the offence are missing.

8. Learned Counsel for the applicant initially submitted that

the offence of cheating by personation in terms of Section 419 of the

Indian penal Code would not attract at all. According to him, no loss or

damage has been caused, and therefore, the essential ingredients are

absent. The reading of FIR prima facie indicates that the accused has

personated by posing himself to be in the service of PM Office, New

Delhi. As regards to aspect of cheating is concerned, the allegation

prima facie discloses that he has deceived the informant and

dishonestly induced him for not to carry proper and fair investigation.

Rather induced the informant omit to investigate, which he would not

have been done otherwise. It is a matter of trial to infer whether on

account of personation there is likelihood to cause damage or harm to

the reputation of the informant by way of misdirecting investigation.

9. By placing reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in

case of Ram Jas vs. State of U.P. 1970(2) SCC 740 , it is submitted that,

to constitute the offence of cheating there must be inducement to

deliver any property. In the said decision, it was a case of wrong

identification before the Oath Commissioner, who was not induced to

deliver any property. In that context, the offence was not held to be

proved. Basically it is a factual aspect to be decided on the basis of

emerging facts of each case.

10. Learned Counsel for the applicant would submit that the

contents of the FIR does not make out an offence of personating a

public servant punishable under Section 170 of the IPC. To substantiate

said contention, reliance is placed on the decision of the Kerala High

Court in case of K.S. Premachandra Kurup vs. State of Kerala 2013

CRI.L.J. 1465. In said case after retirement, the accused used his name

as retired IAS Officer for which the crime was registered. It was

observed that the accused has merely used such nomenclature, but did

not attempted to do any act under colour of such office and therefore,

no offence. Undoubtedly, to constitute the offence under Section 170 of

the IPC firstly, a person must pretend to hold a particular office as a

public servant, and secondly, under such assumed character must do or

attempt to do an act under the color of such office. In case at hand, the

informant has stated that the accused under the color of office has tried

to pressurize the Police for diverting the course of investigation so as to

exclude the then suspect. Therefore, being distinct facts, the said

decision is of no help.

11. On the same line, the applicant further relied on the

decision of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in case of Ajitinder

Singh vs. State of Punjab 2000 CRI.L.J.1827. In said decision also,

though particular character was assumed, but there was no attempt to

commit any act. Thus, for the similar reasons, this decision would not

assist the applicant in any manner. The reliance is also placed on the

decision of the Calcutta High Court in case of A.K. Majumdar vs. The

State 1978 SCC OnLine Cal 154. Wherein also a person assuming false

character has merely attested the documents. This being distinct facts,

above decision would not assist.

12. Learned Counsel for the applicant would submit that the

Police Inspector of Beltarodi Police Station is the informant as well as

the Investigating Officer and therefore, it was not a fair trial. Learned

A.P.P. was quick enough to respond that another Officer Assistant Police

Inspector Anil Meshram has investigated the matter and filed the

charge-sheet and thus, the submission is factually incorrect. At this

juncture, the applicant took one other stand that though the

Investigating Officer is different, however he was subordinate to the

informant (Police Inspector) and therefore, it is not a fair trial. For this

purpose, he relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in case of

Mohan Lal vs. State of Punjab (2018) 17 SCC 627 . In said case, it has

been observed that as a matter of law, the informant and the

investigator must not be the same person, as it is against the basic

principles of fair trial. Herein it is not a case that the informant himself

is an Investigation Officer. The applicant is unable to point out any

provision or material to support his contention that merely because the

informant is a superior officer of the Investigating Officer that ipso

facto amounts to unfair trial. Therefore, the said contention does not

hold any water.

13. Learned Counsel for the applicant relied on the decision of

the Supreme Court in case of Prof. R.K. Vijayasarathy and anr. vs.

Sudha Seetharam and anr. (2019) 16 SCC 739 to content that in

absence of prima facie material, the proceeding can be quashed by

invoking inherent powers of this Court. In the said decision itself it has

been observed that, the complaint has to be examined as a whole, but

cannot examine the merits of the allegations. Neither a detailed inquiry

nor a meticulous analysis of the material is warranted.

14. The Supreme Court in reported case of State of Haryana vs.

Bhajan Lal AIR 1992 SC 604 has laid down the guiding principles on

the basis of which inherent powers are to be invoked. The First

Information Report prima facie constitutes the charged offences. Not

only the accused personated to the informant (Police Inspector) but

also met different higher police authorities and by way of personation

tried to influence the police machinery. The charge-sheet bears a

statement of the driver of the accused, which supports the informant's

contention that the accused went to all concerned police authorities. It

reveals from the police papers that one Sonali Vairagade was friend of

the accused. In order to help to the sister of Sonali i.e. Priya vairagade,

the accused appears to approach to the Police. It emerges that the act of

accused of posing himself to be a high ranking officer attached to the

PM Office, New Delhi and under said guise, tried to influence the Police

Officers, is serious in nature.

15. Already investigation is culminated into filing of the charge-

sheet. Prima facie, triable case is made out. Though there is delay in

lodging the First Information Report, it is a matter of appreciation at

the time of trial. In view of above, no case is made out and therefore,

the application stands rejected.

                                (VALMIKI SA MENEZES, J.)              (VINAY JOSHI, J.)



                       Trupti




TRUPTI SANTOSHJI AGRAWAL

04.03.2023 13:04