V. Srinivasulu Reddy vs The State Of Telangana
2024 Latest Caselaw 2125 Tel

Telangana High Court

V. Srinivasulu Reddy vs The State Of Telangana on 7 June, 2024

                THE HON'BLE SMT JUSTICE K. SUJANA


                   CRIMINAL PETITION NO.7983 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.1293 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 Shantiniketan High School, Shanthi Nagar, Secunderabad and

others have issued the certificate 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 candidate mentioned

at page No.5 of petition is inserted in the admission register at a

later date by tampering the records by inserting the father name at

the end of 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 Shantinikethan

High School and others who are issuing fake VII Class Common

Examination Certificates. Basing on the said complaint the police

registered Cr.No.92 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 Sections 468,

471, 420 and 120-B of IPC.

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 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, petitioner 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.

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

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

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, 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.1293 of 2017 on the file of

1 (2012) 10 Supreme Court Cases 155

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