Mr. Mohammed Yousuf vs G. Sadanandam
2022 Latest Caselaw 2339 Tel

           HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN

           CRIMINAL PETITION No.3829 OF 2021

ORDER:

Heard Mr. Mohd. Faseehuddin, learned counsel for the

petitioner and learned Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of

respondent No.2. Despite service of notice, there is no

representation on behalf of respondent No.1.

2. This Criminal Petition is filed under Section - 482 of the

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short 'the Code') to quash

the proceedings in C.C. No.9146 of 2020 on the file of the Chief

Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad.

3. The petitioner herein is arraigned as accused No.3 in the

said C.C. The offences alleged against him are under Sections -

420, 467, 468, 471 and 120B read with 34 of the Indian Penal

Code, 1860 (for short 'IPC').

4. As per the charge sheet, the allegations leveled against

the petitioner herein and other accused are as follows:

i) The complainant was working as Regional Transport

Officer, South Zone, Hyderabad, at the relevant point of time.

KL,J Crl. P No.3829 of 2021

ii) Accused Nos.1 and 5 are close relatives and known to

other accused.

iii) Accused Nos.1 to 9 have colluded with each other and

planned with an intention to earn easy money by illegal means and

accordingly they started creating fabricated Certificates of

Registration at the residence of accused No.1.

iv) They used to import the information of vehicle owner

particulars by using Telangana M-Wallet Application.

v) Accused Nos.2, 3, 4, 6 and 7 and some others approached

accused Nos.1 and 5 in creating the fabricated Certificates of

Registration.

vi) Accused Nos.8 and 9 created fake and fabricated

Certificates of Registration in respect of two-wheelers with the

help of accused Nos.1 and 5.

vii) Thus, accused Nos.1 to 9 in collusion with each other

have forged the valuable documents which are purported to be a

valuable document / security and which purports to give authority

to the people and make transfer the valuable document, they have

KL,J Crl. P No.3829 of 2021

forged the signatures of RTA Authorities, fabricated the Certificate

of Registration books of two-wheelers and used them as genuine

documents and earned easy money from gullible public by cheating

the RTA Officials as well as the Government, and thereby the

petitioner herein and other accused have committed the aforesaid

offences.

5. On the complaint lodged by respondent No.1 dated

17.12.2019, the Police, Chandrayangutta, have registered a case in

Crime No.493 of 2019 against the petitioner herein and other

accused for the aforesaid offences.

6. During the course of investigation, the Investigating

Officer has recorded the statement of respondent No.1 as LW.1,

Junior assistant, eye-witness to speak about the fabricated

Certificates of Registration, as LW.2, LWs.3 to 7 are circumstantial

witnesses, who spoke about the fabrication of the certificates of

registration and LW.8, circumstantial witness from L & T Finance.

On consideration of the said statements, the Investigating Officer

has laid the charge sheet against the petitioner herein and other

KL,J Crl. P No.3829 of 2021

accused, and the same was taken on file vide C.C. No.9146 of 2020

for the aforesaid offences.

7. Mr. Mohd. Faseehuddin, learned counsel for the

petitioner, would submit that there is no specific allegation against

the petitioner herein, and there is no criminal intention on the part

of the petitioner herein. The particulars of the offences alleged to

have committed by the petitioner herein and role played by him in

the commission of the offences is not there. The allegations are

omnibus allegations and the Police have not recovered anything

from the petitioner - accused No.3. Therefore, the petitioner herein

has not committed any offence as alleged in the charge sheet. With

the said submissions, he sought to quash the proceedings against

the petitioner herein in the said C.C.

8. On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor, on

instructions, would submit that there are specific allegations

against the petitioner herein and the role played by the petitioner

herein is also mentioned. The Investigating Officer has considered

the statements of the witnesses recorded under Section - 161 of the

Cr.P.C. and laid the charge sheet. There are triable issues and the

KL,J Crl. P No.3829 of 2021

defences taken by the petitioner herein cannot be considered in a

petition filed under Section - 482 of the Cr.P.C. With the said

submissions, he sought to dismiss the petition.

9. In view of the above rival submissions, perusal of the

statements of listed witnesses including respondent No.1 and LW.5

would reveal that LW.5 had purchased two-wheeler bearing

registration No.TS 12EJ 5228 from the petitioner herein - accused

No.3 on 25.10.2019 and the petitioner has handed over all the

connected documents to her including certificate of registration. In

fact, the said vehicle was purchased with the finance provided by

L&T Finance. When she went to the office of RTA at Bandlaguda,

South Zone, Hyderabad for effecting transfer of ownership in her

name and submitted the documents given b y the petitioner on

which she was informed by the Staff that the certificate of

registration which she possessed is false and fake. Then, she

informed the same to the petitioner on which he replied that he

procured the same from accused No.1. Thus, the petitioner herein

in collusion with other accused have involved in the aforesaid

crime. It is also relevant to note that perusal of the statement of

KL,J Crl. P No.3829 of 2021

LW.8 recorded under Section - 161 of the Cr.P.C. would reveal

that the vehicle sold by the petitioner to LW.5 was originally

purchased with the finance provided by L&T Finance Company.

The statement of LW.5 recorded under Section - 161 of Cr.P.C.

would also reveal that the petitioner herein himself admitted that as

he does not have the original certificate of registration, he made a

fake document with the help of accused No.1 and gave it to her.

He further informed her not to be afraid and that he would

somehow change the R.C. to her name. Regarding the fake

certificate, the other witnesses from the RTA Office also spoke

clearly in their statements recorded under Section - 161 of the

Cr.P.C.

10. Thus, prima facie, there are specific allegations against

the petitioner herein that in order to cheat LW.5, the petitioner

herein has fabricated and created a fake certificate of registration

with the help of accused No.1 in respect of the aforesaid two-

wheeler vehicle. The defence taken by the petitioner herein

cannot be considered at this stage in a petition filed under Section -

482 of the Cr.P.C. and it is for the trial Court to consider the same.

KL,J Crl. P No.3829 of 2021

The said principle is also held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in

Kamal Shivaji Pokarnekar v. The State of Maharashtra1,

wherein the Apex Court has categorically held that quashing

criminal proceedings was called for only in a case where complaint

did not disclose any offence, or was frivolous, vexatious, or

oppressive. If allegations set out in complaint did not constitute

offence of which cognizance had been taken by Magistrate, it was

open to the High Court to quash the same. It was not necessary

that, a meticulous analysis of case should be done before trial to

find out whether the case would end in conviction or acquittal. If it

appeared on a reading of the complaint and consideration of

allegations therein, in light of the statement made on oath that the

ingredients of the offence are disclosed, there would be no

justification for the High Court to interfere. The defences that

might be available, or facts/aspects which when established during

trial, might lead to acquittal, were not grounds for quashing a

complaint at the threshold. At that stage, the only relevant question

was whether averments in the complaint spell out ingredients of a

criminal offence or not. The Court has to consider whether

. AIR 2019 SC 847

KL,J Crl. P No.3829 of 2021

complaint discloses any prima facie offences that were alleged

against the respondents. Correctness or otherwise of the said

allegations has to be decided only during trial. At the initial stage

of issuance of process, it was not open to Courts to stifle

proceedings by entering into merits of the contentions made on

behalf of the accused. Criminal complaints could not be quashed

only on the ground that, allegations made therein appear to be of a

civil nature. If ingredients of offence alleged against Accused were

prima facie made out in complaint, criminal proceeding shall not

be interdicted.

11. In Skoda Auto Volkswagen India Private Limited v.

The State of Uttar Pradesh2, the Apex Court referring to the

earlier judgments rendered by it has categorically held that the

High Courts in exercise of its inherent powers under Section - 482

of Cr.P.C has to quash the proceedings in criminal cases in rarest

of rare cases with extreme caution.

12. In view of the above discussion, this Court isnot inclined

to quash the proceedings in the above C.C. against the petitioner

. AIR 2021 SC 931

KL,J Crl. P No.3829 of 2021

herein and, therefore, the present criminal petition is liable to be

dismissed.

13. The present Criminal Petition is accordingly dismissed.

As a sequel thereto, Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending

in the Criminal Petition stand closed.

____________________ K. LAKSHMAN, J th 6 June, 2022 Mgr