Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 363 (AP)

K. v. Ramana Reddy VS State of Andhra Pradesh

2013-04-30

C.PRAVEEN KUMAR

body2013
JUDGMENT 1. This Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioner/accused No.3 under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short “Cr.P.C.”) seeking to quash the investigation in Cr.No.9 of 2010 of Eluru III Town Police Station, West Godavari District which was registered for offences punishable under Sections 419 and 420 of IPC against one Javvadi Laxmi Chandu. Subsequently one M.Chenna Rayudu and the petitioner were added as A2 and A3 by altering the offences punishable from Sections 419 and 420 of IPC to one under Sections 419 and 420 read with Sections 511 and 109 of IPC. 2. The allegations in the report are as under: The Manager in the office of the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Eluru Range, Eluru lodged a report stating that on 09.01.2010 they received a phone call in the name of Sri Y.C.Subba Reddy, maternal uncle of Sri Y.S.Jagan Mohan Reddy, M.P., Kadapa from a cell phone bearing No.98662 83439 to the official cell phone of the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Eluru Range, Eluru seeking a favour of transfer of Sri K.V.Ramana Reddy, Sub-Inspector of Police of West Godavari District (the petitioner herein) to Tanuku Town Police Station. The caller is alleged to have stressed for issuing immediate posting orders to the S.I. On verification of caller I.D., it was found that the phone call emanated from Kadapa District. Again on 10.01.2010 at 11.00 A.M., A1, claiming himself to be the A.P. State Coordinator, Jagan Chaitanya Seva Samiti met Deputy Inspector General of Police, Eluru Range at Eluru asking for transfer of the petitioner to Tanuku Town Police Station. He is alleged to have told the Deputy Inspector General of Police that as a follow up of phone call made by Sri Y.C.Subba Reddy, he has met the DIG of Police. The said person was also accompanied by one Rajana Rammohan Rao, Secretary, A.P. Congress Committee. The report further discloses that since it has become practice to misuse the names of Hon ble the then Chief Minister of Andhra Pradesh Late Dr.Y.S.Rajasekhar Reddy or his son Sri Y.S.Jagan Mohan Reddy, a report was lodged asking the police to verify the identity of the caller, who called upon the DIG of police from his cell phone No.98662 83439 and also to initiate appropriate legal action against the concerned. The report further discloses that a request was made to determine whether the caller or A1 are having any connection or relationship with the petitioner. On the basis of the said report, the above case was registered at III Town Police Station, Eluru. 3. Heard Sri P.V.Krishnaiah, the learned counsel for the petitioner and also the learned Public Prosecutor for the State. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner by referring to the correspondence between the S.I. of Police, Eluru III Town Police Station and the Superintendent of Police, West Godavari District contends that no offence is made out against the petitioner. According to him, the petitioner does not figure as an accused in the First Information Report and the correspondence between the Inspector of Police and the Superintendent of Police does not anywhere refer to the role of the petitioner in making a call to the DIG of Police or meeting the DIG of Police at Eluru. He further contends that without his knowledge, the caller impersonated himself as Y.C.Subba Reddy and indulged in the mischief. According to him, his well-wishers have acted without his knowledge and that he is in no way responsible for the said offence. He would further contend that even accepting the allegations to be true, ingredients constituting offences punishable under Sections 419 and 420 read with 511 of IPC are not made out against him. 5. Per contra, the learned Public Prosecutor contends that the case is still at the investigation stage and at this stage this Court should not invoke its inherent powers to quash the proceedings. According to him, large scale offences are committed by misusing the name of Honble the then Chief Minister and his son and as such he pleads that a thorough investigation is necessary to unearth the fraud committed by the accused. 6. The Apex Court in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal ( AIR 1992 SC 604 ) laid down certain guidelines for exercising the power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. which are as follows: “In the following categories of cases the power of under Section 482 Cr.P.C. can be exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of Court of otherwise to secure the ends of justice. (a) Where the allegations made in the first information report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety, do not, prima facie, constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused; (b) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or the complaint, and the evidence collected in support of the same, do not disclose the commission of any offence, and make out a case against the accused; and (c) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fides and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused, and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge.” 7. In State of Karnataka v. M.Devendrappa (2002) 3 SCC 89 ), the Hon ble Supreme Court held as under: “Section 482 Cr.P.C. saves the inherent power of the High Court and, thereunder, nothing in the Code of Criminal Procedure shall be deemed to limit or affect the inherent powers of the High Court to make such orders as may be necessary to give effect to any order under the Cr.P.C. or to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. Section 482 Cr.P.C. does not confer any new power on the High Court. It only saves the inherent power which the Court possessed even before the enactment of the Code. While exercising power, under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the Court does not function as a Court of appeal or revision. Inherent jurisdiction under the section, though wide, has to be exercised sparingly, carefully, with caution and only when such exercise is justified by the tests specifically laid down in the section itself. It is to be exercised ex debito justitiae to do real and substantial justice for which alone Court exists. It would be an abuse of process of the Court to allow any action which would result in injustice and prevent promotion of justice. In exercise of the power, the Court would be justified in quashing any proceeding if it finds that initiation/continuance of it amounts to abuse of the process of Court or quashing of these proceedings would otherwise serve the ends of justice. When no offence is disclosed by the complaint, the Court may examine the question of fact. In exercise of the power, the Court would be justified in quashing any proceeding if it finds that initiation/continuance of it amounts to abuse of the process of Court or quashing of these proceedings would otherwise serve the ends of justice. When no offence is disclosed by the complaint, the Court may examine the question of fact. When a complaint is sought to be quashed, it is permissible to look into the material to assess what the complainant has alleged, and whether any offence is made out even if the allegations are accepted in toto.” 8. In G.SagarSuri v. State of U.P. (2000) 2 SCC 636 ) and State of Karnataka v. L.Muniswamy (1977) 2 SCC 699 ), the Apex Court observed that “jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code has to be exercised with great care and caution”. In JanataDal v. H.S.Chowdhary (1992) 4 SCC 305 ) and Raghubir Saran (Dr.) v. State of Bihar ( AIR 1964 SC 1 ), the Apex Court observed that: “The power possessed by the High Court under Section 482 of the Code are very wide, and the very plenitude of the power requires great caution in its exercise. The inherent power should not be exercised to stifle a legitimate prosecution. The High Court, being the highest Court of a State, 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 magnitude and cannot be seen in their true perspective without sufficient material.” 9. In PadalVenkata Rama Reddy v. Kovvuri Satyanarayana Reddy (2011 (2) ALD (Crl.) 278 (SC), the Apex Court cautioned that “if the necessary factual foundation is laid in the criminal complaint, merely on the ground that a few ingredients have not been stated in detail, the criminal proceedings should not be quashed. Quashing of the complaint is warranted only where the complaint is bereft of even the basic facts which are absolutely necessary for making out the alleged offence.” Further, the Court will not be justified in embarking upon an enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the FIR or the complaint. Quashing of the complaint is warranted only where the complaint is bereft of even the basic facts which are absolutely necessary for making out the alleged offence.” Further, the Court will not be justified in embarking upon an enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the FIR or the complaint. The power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. does not confer an arbitrary jurisdiction on the Court to act according to its whims or caprice. 10. Having given a thoughtful consideration to the rival submissions made by the parties, I proceed to deal with the matter on the basis of material available on record and by following the guidelines laid down by the Apex Court in exercising the inherent power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. 11. It is true that the name of the petitioner is not found in the First Information Report. That by itself does not mean that he is innocent of the offence alleged to have been committed by him. The First Information Report is not an encyclopedia, which should contain all the details. The said report was lodged by an officer working in the office of DIG of Police on the basis of a phone call received to the official number of DIG of Police. Therefore, it cannot be said that merely because the name of the petitioner is not there in the First Information Report, continuation of proceedings against him would amount to abuse of process of Court. The report was lodged to set the criminal law into motion. Relevancy of name in the FIR is of no significance in a case of this nature. 12. The purpose for which the caller identified himself as Y.C.Subba Reddy is not known but it remains undisputed that the call was made to the cell phone of DIG of Police for the benefit of the petitioner only. The fact that the caller impersonated himself as Y.C.Subba Reddy is also not in dispute since the record reveals that the DIG of Police went and met Y.C. Subba Reddy and verified as to whether such a call was made by him. After verifying the factual aspects, the police started investigating into the matter and during the course of investigation they found that the above call was made by one M.Chenna Rayudu from Kadapa. After verifying the factual aspects, the police started investigating into the matter and during the course of investigation they found that the above call was made by one M.Chenna Rayudu from Kadapa. The communication between the Inspector of Police and the Superintendent of Police, which was sought to be relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner coupled with alteration memo filed by the police, would show that A1 confessed before the mediators revealing the manner in which the incident took place. He refers to the petitioner calling him, introducing himself as 1991 batch SI and requested to see that he is posted as S.I. of Police at Tanuku Town police station. A1 placed the matter before A2, who impersonated himself as Y.C.Subba Reddy and sought transfer of the petitioner forthwith. The plea of the petitioner that he has no knowledge about impersonation by A1 and A2 cannot be accepted at this stage. He being the beneficiary, the truth of the allegations made need to be investigated. 13. From the above, it is clear that the commission of offence originated from Govinda Babu, Police Constable at Tanuku Police Station and from there to Rafi of Tanuku town and then through the petitioner to A1 and A2. The alteration memo filed by the police for impleading A2 and A3 as accused clearly indicates that everything was being done for the benefit of the petitioner. The incident of impersonation and meeting the DIG of Police as a follow-up of a phone call made by the impersonator is for the benefit of the petitioner only. The allegation of impersonation by A2 has to be verified from various angles. The submission of the learned Public Prosecutor that the nature of crime has wide ramifications, cannot be brushed aside. The proposed beneficiary being the petitioner, the involvement of A2 as to whether he impersonated himself as Y.C. Subba Reddy on his own or at the instance of the petitioner, requires thorough investigation. The facts are not complete and entire picture is hazy. The proposed beneficiary being the petitioner, the involvement of A2 as to whether he impersonated himself as Y.C. Subba Reddy on his own or at the instance of the petitioner, requires thorough investigation. The facts are not complete and entire picture is hazy. In view of the judgment of the Apex Court reported in Janata Dal s case, referred to supra, wherein it has been held that where the facts are incomplete and hazy and where material is not yet collected and produced before the Court and the issues involved, whether factual or legal, are of magnitude and cannot be seen in their true perspective without sufficient material, the power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. cannot be invoked to quash the said proceedings. As observed earlier, the situation in the present case is still in a fluid state and the investigation has just commenced. 14. The argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner that even accepting the allegations in the report at its face value, offences under Sections 419 and 420 of IPC are not made out against the petitioner, cannot be accepted. A plain reading of the report would prima facie disclose commission of offences punishable under Sections 419 and 420 read with Section 511 of IPC. As observed earlier, the investigation is still at the threshold and facts are incomplete and hazy. The role of the petitioner has to be ascertained, which would come out only during the course of investigation. The Apex Court has time and again held that whenever a report about the commission of cognizable offence is lodged with the police, they should be given reasonable time to investigate and find out the truth or otherwise of the allegations made in the report. 15. Under the above circumstances, this is not a fit case where inherent power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. can be invoked to interdict the investigation at the threshold. 16. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition filed by quashing of the investigation in Cr.No.9 of 2010 of Eluru III Town Police Station, West Godavari District is dismissed. The miscellaneous petitions, if any pending shall stand closed.