Research › Search › Judgment

Gujarat High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 585 (GUJ)

Hiral Anand Mehta v. State of Gujarat

2019-05-10

A.P.THAKER

body2019
JUDGMENT : A.P. Thaker, J. 1. By way of present petition filed under Articles 14, 19, 21, 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India and under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the petitioner seeks to quash and set aside the First Information Report being I-C.R. No. 72 of 2016 lodged with Dharampur Police Station and the charge-sheet No. 8 of 2017 dated 25.02.2017 submitted by Dharampur Police Station in Criminal Case No. 162 of 2017 before the Dharampur Magistrate Court for the offences punishable under Sections 423, 465, 467, 468, 471 read with Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code. 2. Brief facts of the present case are that the respondent No. 2 herein has lodged written complaint with an allegation that the accused in collusion with each other with a view to take illegal possession and usurp the property belonging to the complainant in Dharampur Taluka known as Darbar Compound being City Survey Nos. 1623, 1624, 1625, 1915/part 3/A/B, 1918, 1919, 1922 carried out a criminal conspiracy by purchasing stamp paper of Rs. 100/- on 21.09.2013 in the name of the concerned accused and on that made a lease deed for 80 years on 24.09.2013 and made bogus signature of the complainant, which was signed by the concerned accused person and, thus, they have created bogus document and the present petitioner has used the stamp of forensic document examiner and that document being put forth as genuine one and thereby, the accused attempted to take possession of the land and have committed the alleged crime. The main allegation against the petitioner is to the effect that she has allegedly conspired with the other accused and the complainant does not know the petitioner and the petitioner has affixed her stamp of forensic document examiner on the lease deed and on the allegation that for doing so, there was no reason for the petitioner and, therefore, she has allegedly conspired with the other accused. 2.1. It is the contention of the petitioner that she is practicing as forensic document examiner and handwriting expert and attached with 20 banks and financial institutions and has also worked for the Ordinance Defense Factory and has also given several lectures and also examined many documents and has appeared as witness in the Court of law. 2.1. It is the contention of the petitioner that she is practicing as forensic document examiner and handwriting expert and attached with 20 banks and financial institutions and has also worked for the Ordinance Defense Factory and has also given several lectures and also examined many documents and has appeared as witness in the Court of law. It is also her contention that two persons came before her for opinion to the signature of the lease deed and, thereafter, after examining everything, she has qualified the signature of the lease deed as has been written by writer of the represented admitted signatures of one purported to be of Divya Devi. She has contended that she has specifically narrated that the description of the documents is as per representations given. She has contended that she has only taken the reasonable fees that too before giving the opinion and has documented the receipt and returned of the originals, which were with her only for a limited period of time. She has contended that she does not know the people, properties, disputes etc and has purely given an opinion on the basis of the documents produced before her and her stamp is not there on the lease deed. She has contended that she has admittedly not a part/ beneficiary of the lease deed or having any relation with the people or the matter. 2.2. The petitioner has contended that even before the complaint made on 27.02.2015, the petitioner was approached on 03.02.2015 by the complainant's agents/servants first asking her that whether she has stamped the notarized document and in spite of extensive clarifications on the part of the petitioner, they made allegation against her. It is contended that the agents/servants even then refused to appreciate the role of an expert and gave her personal threats as well as to drag her into criminal proceedings and, therefore, she has filed an application with Tilaknagar Police Station. 2.3. It is contended by the petitioner that there is no offence made out in the alleged FIR and/or the charge-sheet. She has contended that the present FIR is nothing but abuse of process of law and she has prayed to quash and set aside the impugned FIR and the charge-sheet filed against her. 3. 2.3. It is contended by the petitioner that there is no offence made out in the alleged FIR and/or the charge-sheet. She has contended that the present FIR is nothing but abuse of process of law and she has prayed to quash and set aside the impugned FIR and the charge-sheet filed against her. 3. The respondent No. 2 - original complainant has filed affidavit-in-reply wherein she has stated that the present petitioner has conspired with the other accused in creating false documents and her action is nothing but a criminal action. She has narrated the description of the property and the ownership thereof and has stated that she has not given any general power of attorney for lease deed and the present petitioner has given opinion that the so-called lease deed is bear her signature. It is stated that the petitioner knew the other accused and has conspired with them against respondent No. 2. She has stated that the petitioner has created concocted story to defend her case of conspiracy in wrongful lease deed to respondent No. 2. She has denied the contention of the petitioner that her agents/servants threatened the petitioner. It is stated that the petitioner has acted in connivance with the other accused and is equally guilty having same incident as of the other accused of conspiracy to usurp the property of the respondent No. 2. On all these grounds, it is prayed to dismiss the present petition. 4. Heard Mr. R.J. Goswami, learned advocate for the petitioner, Ms. Monali Bhatt, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent No. 1 and Mr. Jigar Patel, learned advocate for respondent No. 2. Perused the material placed on record and perused the decisions cited at the bar. 5. Mr. R.J. Goswami, learned advocate for the petitioner has submitted the same facts which are narrated in the memo of petition and has submitted that the present petitioner has only given opinion regarding the alleged signature as an expert. While referring to the FIR and the material placed on record, he has submitted that the FIR has been given on 27.02.2015 which has been registered on 05.07.2016 wherein the alleged offence is said to be of 24.09.2013 and no explanation has been given for such delay. While referring to the FIR and the material placed on record, he has submitted that the FIR has been given on 27.02.2015 which has been registered on 05.07.2016 wherein the alleged offence is said to be of 24.09.2013 and no explanation has been given for such delay. He has submitted that there is no prima-facie evidence to connect the present petitioner with the other accused as she has only given an opinion as an examiner. He has submitted that the petitioner has given an opinion after accepting the nominal fees and prior to filing of the FIR, she has narrated everything before the concerned police. While referring to the opinion given by the petitioner, Mr. Goswami, learned advocate has submitted that after analyzing the purported signature with the document placed before her, the petitioner has given detailed opinion. He has submitted that on the same facts, there may be difference in the opinion of two persons. While referring to the provision of Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act, he has submitted that the opinion given by an expert is a relevant facts and handwriting expert cannot be prosecuted for his/her opinion which may be passed on the documents produced before such expert. He has submitted that there is no any prima-facie material to show that the petitioner, in anywhere, had abetted the so-called offence by the other accused and there is no iota of evidence to connect the present petitioner with the other accused. He has relied upon the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Central Bureau of Investigation Hyderabad vs. K. Narayana Rao, (2012) 9 SCC 512 and he has prayed to allow the present petition. 6. Per contra, Ms. Monali Bhatt, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent No. 1 - State has vehemently submitted that there is specific allegation made in the FIR against the present petitioner and the original document and the natural signature of the complainant was sent to the FSL and as per the report of FSL, there is difference in the opinion given by the present petitioner. According to her, the present petitioner has in connivance with other accused has given opinion to facilitate other accused with the crime and, therefore, considering the facts of the case, the petition may be dismissed. According to her, the present petitioner has in connivance with other accused has given opinion to facilitate other accused with the crime and, therefore, considering the facts of the case, the petition may be dismissed. She has contended that the judgment cited by learned advocate for the petitioner is on the facts of that case and it cannot be applied to the facts of the present case. She has submitted that the charge-sheet has already been filed and, therefore, there is prima-facie evidence against the present petitioner. While referring to the report of the FSL with the opinion given by the petitioner, she has submitted that the opinion of the present petitioner is falsified by the report of the FSL and, therefore, there is prima-facie material to show that the petitioner is abetted as well as conspirator of the crime. Regarding decision in the case of Central Bureau of Investigation Hyderabad vs. K. Narayana Rao (supra) relied upon by learned advocate for the petitioner, she has submitted that the said case was relating to an advocate and his name was not narrated in the FIR, whereas, in the present case, there is specific allegation made against the present petitioner and her name has been shown in the FIR. She has submitted that the said decision is on the facts of that case and it cannot be applied to the facts of the present case. 7. Mr. Jigar Patel, learned advocate for respondent No. 2 has vehemently submitted that there is allegation of conspiracy against the present petitioner as she has given false opinion and has affixed her stamp on the alleged document. He has contended that how the petitioner came in possession of the copy of the letter dated 25.04.2012 addressed to the Police Sub Inspector, Dharampur Police Station by the complainant Divya Devi which is at page No. 211 of the compilation. While referring to the various documentary evidence on record, he has contended that there is prima-facie material against the present accused and the charge-sheet has also been filed. While referring to the opinion of the petitioner, he has contended that there is no disclosure as to how the photo copy of the signature of the complainant was obtained. While referring to the various documentary evidence on record, he has contended that there is prima-facie material against the present accused and the charge-sheet has also been filed. While referring to the opinion of the petitioner, he has contended that there is no disclosure as to how the photo copy of the signature of the complainant was obtained. While referring to the FSL report, he has contended that there is observation of the FSL that there is no natural signature of the complainant on the alleged document which opinion differ from the opinion of the present petitioner. He has also referred to the observation of this Court made in Criminal Misc. Application (Anticipatory Bail) No. 19885 of 2016 dated 22.09.2016, especially para-7.4 thereof which reads as under:- "7.4 One of the accused, who claims to have the power in his favour from the original land owner (the complainant), and based on which the agreement in question is signed by him, had approached a private hand written expert on 19.01.2015 to obtain an opinion whether the signature of the original land owner is forged or otherwise. The necessity of doing so is not clear nor is explained, and that is going to the root of the matter." 7.1. Learned advocate for respondent No. 2 has contended that considering the allegation made in the complaint and the material collected by the Investigating Officer, there is chain of transaction and there is ingredients of conspiracy. He has contended that the petitioner has not placed on record any receipt of charging of fee. He has contended that the possession was taken forcibly on the basis of the opinion of the present petitioner and if the present petition is allowed then it would adversely affect the entire criminal case against the accused. 7.2. He has also contended that Sections 44 and 45 of the Indian Evidence Act will not be applied at this stage. While relying on the decision in the case of Bilal Hajar @ Abdul Hameed vs. State Rep. by the Inspector of Police, AIR 2018 SC 4780 for his preposition as to the criminal conspiracy, he has urged to dismiss the present petition. 8. In response, Mr. Goswami, learned advocate for the petitioner has submitted that the present petitioner is handwriting expert and she has no connection with other accused. by the Inspector of Police, AIR 2018 SC 4780 for his preposition as to the criminal conspiracy, he has urged to dismiss the present petition. 8. In response, Mr. Goswami, learned advocate for the petitioner has submitted that the present petitioner is handwriting expert and she has no connection with other accused. While referring to the copy of order of Sessions Case No. 449 of 2007 of the Sessions Court, Bombay in the case of State of Maharashtra vs. Phool Chand Khemraj Jain and Others, he has submitted that there is specific mentioned that the petitioner was examined as witness. According to him, this shows that the petitioner is handwriting expert and there is difference of opinion in the report of handwriting expert then one cannot be prima-facie considered to have committed any criminal offence. He has submitted that when the present petitioner has no connection whatsoever with other accused, the offence of conspiracy cannot be prima-facie made out against her. He has prayed to allow the present petition. 9. In the case of Central Bureau of Investigation Hyderabad vs. K. Narayana Rao (supra), the Apex Court has held and observed in para-24 as under:- “24. The ingredients of the offence of criminal conspiracy are that there should be an agreement between the persons who are alleged to conspire and the said agreement should be for doing of an illegal act or for doing, by illegal means, an act which by itself may not be illegal. In other words, the essence of criminal conspiracy is an agreement to do an illegal act and such an agreement can be proved either by direct evidence or by circumstantial evidence or by both and in a matter of common experience that direct evidence to prove conspiracy is rarely available. Accordingly, the circumstances proved before and after the occurrence have to be considered to decide about the complicity of the accused. Even if some acts are proved to have committed, it must be clear that they were so committed in pursuance of an agreement made between the accused persons who were parties to the alleged conspiracy. Inferences from such proved circumstances regarding the guilt may be drawn only when such circumstances are incapable of any other reasonable explanation. Even if some acts are proved to have committed, it must be clear that they were so committed in pursuance of an agreement made between the accused persons who were parties to the alleged conspiracy. Inferences from such proved circumstances regarding the guilt may be drawn only when such circumstances are incapable of any other reasonable explanation. In other words, an offence of conspiracy cannot be deemed to have been established on mere suspicion and surmises or inference which are not supported by cogent and acceptable evidence.” 10. Regarding criminal conspiracy, the Apex Court in the case of Bilal Hajar @ Abdul Hameed (supra) has held and observed in paragraphs No. 27 to 33 as under:- “27. The expression "criminal conspiracy" is defined in Section 120A, IPC. It says that when two or more persons agree or cause to be done an illegal act or an act, which is not illegal by illegal means, such an agreement is designated a "criminal conspiracy." It then provides an exception to the effect that no agreement except an agreement to commit an offence shall amount to a criminal conspiracy unless some act besides the agreement is done by one or more parties to such agreement in pursuance thereof. The explanation appended to the Section clarifies that it is immaterial whether the illegal act is the ultimate object of such agreement or is merely incidental to that object. 28. Section 120B, IPC provides a punishment for committing an offence of criminal conspiracy. It says that whoever is a party to a criminal conspiracy to commit an offence punishable with death, imprisonment for life, or rigorous imprisonment for a term of two years or upwards shall be punished in the same manner as if he had abetted such offence provided there is no express provision made in the Code for punishment of such conspiracy. 29. Sub-section (2) of Section 120B, IPC, however, provides that a person who is a party to a criminal conspiracy other than a criminal conspiracy to commit an offence punishable as aforesaid shall be punished with an imprisonment of either for a term not exceeding six months or with fine or both. 30. Reading of Section 120A and Section 120B, IPC makes it clear that an offence of "criminal conspiracy" is a separate and distinct offence. 30. Reading of Section 120A and Section 120B, IPC makes it clear that an offence of "criminal conspiracy" is a separate and distinct offence. Therefore, in order to constitute a criminal conspiracy and to attract its rigor, two factors must be present in the case on facts: first, involvement of more than one person and second, an agreement between/among such persons to do or causing to be done an illegal act or an act which is not illegal but is done or causing to be done by illegal means. 31. The expression "criminal conspiracy" was aptly explained by this Court in a case reported in Major E.G. Barsay vs. State of Bombay, (1962) 2 SCR 195 . Learned Judge Subba Rao (as His Lordship then was and later became CJI) speaking for the Bench in his distinctive style of writing said: "31........The gist of the offence is an agreement to break the law. The parties to such an agreement will be guilty of criminal conspiracy, though the illegal act agreed to be done has not been done. So too, it is not an ingredient of the offence that all the parties should agree to do a single illegal act. It may comprise the commission of a number of acts." 32. Therefore, in order to constitute a conspiracy, meeting of mind of two or more persons to do an illegal act or an act by illegal means is a must. In other words, it is sine qua non for invoking the plea of conspiracy against the accused. However, it is not necessary that all the conspirators must know each and every detail of the conspiracy, which is being hatched and nor it is necessary to prove their active part/role in such meeting. 33. In other words, their presence and participation in such meeting alone is sufficient. It is well known that a criminal conspiracy is always hatched in secrecy and is never an open affair to anyone much less to public at large.” 11. Sections 45 and 46 of the Indian Evidence Act read as under:- 45. 33. In other words, their presence and participation in such meeting alone is sufficient. It is well known that a criminal conspiracy is always hatched in secrecy and is never an open affair to anyone much less to public at large.” 11. Sections 45 and 46 of the Indian Evidence Act read as under:- 45. Opinions of experts.-When the Court has to form an opinion upon a point of foreign law, or of science, or art, or as to identity of handwriting [or finger impressions] the opinions upon that point of persons specially skilled in such foreign law, science or art [or in questions as to identity of handwriting] [or finger impressions] are relevant facts. Such persons are called experts. 46. Facts bearing upon opinions of experts - Facts, not otherwise relevant, are relevant if they support or are inconsistent with the opinions of experts, when such opinions are relevant. 12. In view of the aforesaid provisions contained in Sections 45 and 46, it is crystal clear that the opinion of the handwriting expert is a relevant fact. Now in this case, the present petitioner has given her opinion on the basis of her status as an handwriting expert. It also reveals from the material placed on record that she has also appeared before the Court of State of Maharashtra for an expert witness. Therefore, she may be considered to be an expert in her field, however, her opinion may be relevant, while deciding the trial. But at the same time, she may be made a witness against other co-accused instead of arraying her as an accused. 13. Now, on perusal of the material on record, it prima-facie appears that the present petitioner has given opinion as handwriting expert on the basis of the material placed before her. On perusal of her report, wherein, she has stated as follows:- "I have scientifically examined the following four Disputed Signatures written apparently as threaded formation of "Divya Devi" on documents purported to be pertaining to a Legal Rent Agreement i.e. Lease Deed for 80 Years dated 24-9-2013. They are as follows:- D-1: written at the bottom part of the page on a document being a Rs. 100 Stamp Paper bearing number Z-572624 and reading Legal Rent Agreement i.e. Lease Deed for 80 Years Today on dated 24-9-2013 day Tuesday... They are as follows:- D-1: written at the bottom part of the page on a document being a Rs. 100 Stamp Paper bearing number Z-572624 and reading Legal Rent Agreement i.e. Lease Deed for 80 Years Today on dated 24-9-2013 day Tuesday... D-2: written at the bottom part of the page on a document reading (expert piki1915/3/A/B1918, 1918, 1922 situated at Maje Village... D-3: written at the bottom part of the page on a document reading after the commencement of this lease agreement day can tent out immediately... D-4: written as the first signature below the body text; on a document reading 7. Accept to all heirs and pedigree Detail of Property...agreed and shall binding and shall remain too... The above documents are purported to be page 1 to 4 of Legal Rent Agreement i.e. Lease Deed for 80 Years dated 24-9-2013. I have examined and compared the above signatures to the following signatures of one purported to be Ms. Divyadevi Sahdevji (Mrs. Divyadevi Premsingh Varman (Barman):- A-1: written above the photographs; on a document being a Rs. 100 Stamp Paper bearing number S 886217 and reading General Power of Attorney To All To whom these present. India Send Greetings: A-2: written at the lower part of the page; on a document reading 2 Whereas - (a) I, being the sole owner of all the...(hereinafter collectively called the 2. A-3: written at the lower part of the page on a document reading 3 Attorney to act for me, jointly and/or... on my account in respect of the 3. A-4: written at the lower part of the page; on a document reading 4 said properties, at his discretion and...become non-suite therein if the 4. A-5: written at the lower part of the page; on a document reading 5 Attorney shall see cause and also... matter; and things herein either 5. A-6: written at the lower part of the page; on a document reading 6 particularly or generally described as.... does not authorize any of my 6. A-7: written above the typewritten name; on a document reading 7 attorneys to execute any Sale Deed... It Witness Whereof..." The above documents marked A-1 to A-7 have been given to me as a photocopies and are purported to be a part of a General Power of Attorney dated 24th April 2012. does not authorize any of my 6. A-7: written above the typewritten name; on a document reading 7 attorneys to execute any Sale Deed... It Witness Whereof..." The above documents marked A-1 to A-7 have been given to me as a photocopies and are purported to be a part of a General Power of Attorney dated 24th April 2012. A-8: written above the handwritten name; on a document reading 'To, The Police Sub Inspector Mr. E.G. Parmer, Dharampur...I have received your letter No. 1053/2012 dated 19-4-12 on 24-4-12...Divy Devi (25-4-12) This document is purported to be a letter dated 25-4-12 to the Police Sub Inspector Dharampur Valsad. The above documents have been given to me as originals. Documents given as an original imply that it signature or handwriting referred therein have been given to me as a made by pen in ink as against mechanical reproduction like a print out or a photocopy. The description of the documents is as per representations given. Copies of the documents have been enclosed herewith for reference. The documents and other demonstrations form as part of the written opinion, wherein all the pages have been numbered, and are bearing my stamp and signature in ink. 13.1. Further, after scrutiny of everything on scientific manner, the ultimate opinion given by the petitioner is as under:- OPINION On the cumulative and corroborative effect of the examination, observations and scientific principles of forensic document and handwriting examination, in pursuance to the given assignment. I am of the opinion that four Disputed Signatures marked D-1 to D-4 written apparently as threaded formations of Divya Devi on documents purported to be pertaining to a Legal Rent Agreement i.e. Lease Deed for 80 Years dated 24-9-2013, as described above, have been written by the writer of the Admitted Signatures marked A-1 to A-8 of one purported to be Ms. Divyadevi Sahdevji (Mrs. Divyadevi Premsingh Varman (Barman). Note: If my presence is required before the Hon. Court or any other place in context with this opinion, a fee of Rs. 4,000 is chargeable and to be paid in advance along with the required travel arrangements from Mumbai. 14. Now, the prosecution has relied on the report of the Director of Forensic Science, which reads as under:- To, The Superintendent of Police, Valsad. CASE ABSTRACT (I) CASE DETAILS 1. Opinion/Report Number with date AB-461/2016, dated 08.06.2017. 2. 4,000 is chargeable and to be paid in advance along with the required travel arrangements from Mumbai. 14. Now, the prosecution has relied on the report of the Director of Forensic Science, which reads as under:- To, The Superintendent of Police, Valsad. CASE ABSTRACT (I) CASE DETAILS 1. Opinion/Report Number with date AB-461/2016, dated 08.06.2017. 2. Forwarding Authority: The Superintendent of Police, Valsad Vide letter No. 3. Mode/Date of receipt: By Messenger on 19.09.2016. 4. Subject: Examination of documents. 5. Details of Seal Covers: Received in intact Sealed Covers. (II) DETAILS OF EXHIBITS 1. Disputed signatures marked D1 to D4 legal rent agreement I.E. lease deed for 80 years. 2. Disputed signature marked D5 on dated 24.04.2012. 3. Disputed signature marked D6 on dated 24.09.2013. 4. Disputed signature marked D7 on dated 24.09.2013. 5. Disputed signature marked D8 on dated 17.05.2013. 6. Disputed signature marked D9 on dated 16.08.2012. 2. STANDARDS: 1. Specimen signatures marked S1 to S36 on 6 loose sheets and natural signature marked N1 on form No. 1022285 of Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited dated 10.12.2009 and natural signature marked N2 on receipt HLP No. JJ 35492 of LG dated 08.12.2009 stated to be of Divya Devi Premsing Varman. N.B. Case Abstract is prepared as per 1.0 Report. LABORATORY EXAMINATION Resultant upon a careful and thorough examination of all the original documents received in this case with the help of necessary scientific aids such as magnifying lenses, different light sources and the opinion is as under: OPINION "The person who wrote the blue enclosed standard signatures marked S1 to S36, N1 and N2 did not write the red enclosed disputed signatures marked D1 to D9." 15. Now, considering both reports, it prima-facie appears that the opinion given by the present petitioner is based on the some other documents whereas the document referred to by the FSL as natural signature of the complainant is different. It also transpires that the present petitioner has given her opinion after scrutinizing the document given to her by applying standard after adoption by handwriting expert, while examining the document. Her role is pertaining to offering her opinion on the disputed signature on the alleged lease deed. 16. Now, so far as the present petitioner is roped only on the ground that she has conspired with the other accused. Her role is pertaining to offering her opinion on the disputed signature on the alleged lease deed. 16. Now, so far as the present petitioner is roped only on the ground that she has conspired with the other accused. On perusal of the papers made available, there is no prima-facie material to show that the petitioner has agreed or caused to be done an illegal act or an act, which by itself may not be illegal by illegal means. Considering her role as an handwriting expert, she cannot be termed as a conspirator in the crime. Rather she is primary witness for roping the main accused and for their conviction. There is no ingredients of criminal conspiracy being hatched by the present petitioner with other accused. She cannot be made as accused for the alleged offence committed by the other accused. 17. Under the aforesaid circumstances, it appears that the impugned FIR lodged against the present petitioner is nothing but an abuse of process of law. She might be made a witness for proving the case of the prosecution against the main accused, but she cannot be arraigned as an accused as a conspirator. Considering the facts and circumstances of the present case, this Court is of the opinion that the power under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code is required to be exercised qua the present petitioner. The criminal prosecution qua other co-accused may be continued. 18. For the foregoing reasons, the present petition is allowed. The impugned FIR being I-C.R. No. 72 of 2016 lodged with Dharampur Police Station and the charge-sheet No. 8 of 2017 dated 25.02.2017 which culminated in Criminal Case No. 162 of 2017 pending before the Dharampur Magistrate Court for the offences punishable under Sections 423, 465, 467, 468, 471 read with Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code and all other consequential proceedings thereof qua the present petitioner are hereby quashed and set aside. The aforesaid criminal proceedings may be continued against other accused. Rule is made absolute accordingly. Direct service is permitted.