Telangana High Court

Abdul Majeed vs State Of Telangana on 29 October, 2024

        THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE K. SUJANA

            CRIMINAL PETITION No.7412 of 2024


ORDER:

This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of the

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short 'Cr.P.C.') by the

petitioner/accused No.1 seeking to quash the proceedings

against him in CC.No.1242 of 2019 on the file of the X

Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad District, at

Secunderabad, for the alleged offences punishable under

Sections 419, 420, 468, 471 and 474 read with Section 34 of

the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short 'IPC') and Section

12(1)(b) of Passports Act, 1967 (for short 'Act, 1967').

2. The brief facts of the case are that the Sub Inspector of

Police, Marredpally Police Station, Secunderabad, represented

by respondent - State, lodged complaint against the petitioner

stating that on receipt of credible information they raided the

place as reported along with two panchas to verify the veracity

of the information and found that the petitioner/accused No.1

had two Indian Passports with different names and several

other fake documents. It is stated that on questioning, the

petitioner confessed being guilty of possessing passports by

SKS,J

name Dawood Abdul Majid and Manuel Dev, respectively, and

several other fake educational certificates.

3. On completion of due investigation, a charge sheet was

filed against nine accused persons, whereunder, the petitioner

was arrayed as accused No.1. Aggrieved thereby, the

petitioner/accused No.1 filed this Criminal Petition praying to

quash the proceedings against him in CC.No.1242 of 2019.

4. Heard Sri Thomas George, learned counsel for

petitioner/accused No.1, and Sri D.Arun Kumar, learned

Additional Public Prosecutor, appearing for respondent - State.

5. Learned counsel for petitioner, submitted that the

proceedings initiated against the petitioner are liable to be

quashed as there was no sanction obtained from the Central

Government as mandated by Section 15 of the Act, 1967. He

contended that the entire case against the petitioner is based on

his alleged confession but no person can be prosecuted only on

the basis of confession. He asserted that though it is alleged

that accused No.7 helped the petitioner in committing the

alleged crime, the proceedings against him are already quashed

vide orders passed in Crl.P.No.9261 of 2021 and the

proceedings against accused No.5 as well are quashed vide

SKS,J

orders passed in Crl.P.No.9103 of 2024. He averred that the

entire narration of prosecution pertains to nexus between

accused No.7 and petitioner, and as the proceedings against

accused No.7 are already quashed, continuation of proceedings

against the petitioner would amount to abuse of process of law.

In support of his contentions, reliance was placed on the

judgments rendered in Anil Kumar and Others Vs. MK

Aiyappa and Other 1, Kulwant Singh Vs. State of Punjab and

Another 2, State of Gujrat Vs. Iliyasbhai Adambhai Vohra 3,

Malcom War Macled Vs. State of West Bengal 4, Abdul Aziz

Vs. State of Kerala 5, and Shymesh Vs. State of Kerala 6.

6. Learned counsel for petitioner incessantly contended

that there is absolutely no evidence with the prosecution to

criminally prosecute the petitioner and the confession

statement alone is inadmissible and cannot be the basis to

charge petitioner for criminal conspiracy. In support of this

contention he relied on the judgment rendered in Bhai

Jagdishchandra Patel Vs. State of Gujarat 7 contending that

charges cannot be framed against a person on the basis of

2013 9 SC 869

2012 SCC OnLine P&H 1369

2016 SCC OnLine Guj 2858

2010 SCC OnLine Cal 2015

2019 SCC OnLine Ker 17433

2014 SCC OnLine Ker 11911

2019 16 SCC 547

SKS,J

confession of alleged accused. Therefore, prayed this Court to

allow the criminal petition, quashing the proceedings initiated

against the petitioner in CC.No.1242 of 2019.

7. On the other hand, the learned Additional Public

Prosecutor appearing for respondent - State, submitted that the

allegations leveled against the petitioner are with regard to

possessing two Indian Passports with different names and also

several fake documents/educational certificates. He contended

that petitioner and accused No.2 hatched a plan to get solar

LED system project from USA, and accused No.2 provided the

requisite help to petitioner in obtaining fake documents and

cheating to get project permission to gain easy money. He

averred that the allegations against the petitioner being of

serious nature, the matter requires full fledged trial. Therefore,

prayed this Court to dismiss the criminal petition.

8. Having regard to the rival submissions made and on

going through the material placed on record, it is noted that

according to respondent and as per the contents of complaint,

the petitioner, in active collusion with other accused persons,

was involved in hatching a plan to earn easy money by

procuring solar led system project from USA, Lighting Science,

and for this purpose, the petitioner had obtained several fake

SKS,J

documents and educational certificates in the name of Dev

Manuel and also obtained fresh passport basing on the said

fake documents, whereas, it is the specific stand of learned

counsel for petitioner that except for the confession statement

of petitioner, there is no other evidence to prove that the

petitioner had been involved in the alleged criminal activity of

possessing two passports and cheating authorities by way of

securing fake and fabricated documents and certificates.

9. At this stage, it is pertinent to note the judgment of the

Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Central Bureau of

Investigation Vs. Aryan Singh 8, whereunder, in paragraph

No.10 it was categorically held as under:

"10. From the impugned common judgment and order

passed by the High Court, it appears that the High

Court has dealt with the proceedings before it, as if,

the High Court was conducting a mini trial and/or the

High Court was considering the applications against

the judgment and order passed by the learned Trial

Court on conclusion of trial. As per the cardinal

principle of law, at the stage of discharge and/or

quashing of the criminal proceedings, while exercising

the powers under Section 482 Cr. P.C., the Court is

not required to conduct the mini trial. The High Court

2023 SCC OnLine SC 379

SKS,J

in the common impugned judgment and order has

observed that the charges against the accused are not

proved. This is not the stage where the

prosecution/investigating agency is/are required to

prove the charges. The charges are required to be

proved during the trial on the basis of the evidence led

by the prosecution/investigating agency. Therefore,

the High Court has materially erred in going in detail

in the allegations and the material collected during the

course of the investigation against the accused, at this

stage. At the stage of discharge and/or while

exercising the powers under Section 482 Cr. P.C., the

Court has a very limited jurisdiction and is required to

consider "whether any sufficient material is available

to proceed further against the accused for which the

accused is required to be tried or not."

10. Further, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of

State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Surendra Kori 9, observed as

under:

"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

(2012) 10 SCC 155

SKS,J

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."