Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 32 (AP)

Nadakudiri Roja Rani v. State of A. P.

2020-01-22

D.V.S.S.SOMAYAJULU

body2020
JUDGMENT : D.V.S.S. SOMAYAJULU, J. 1. This Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioner to quash all further proceedings in C.C. No. 483 of 2019 on the file of the Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kakinada. 2. This Court has heard Sri S.R. Sanku and the learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the State. 3. Notice was ordered to the 2nd respondent. Proof of service has been filed vide USR No. 62809 of 2019. The postal track report shows that the item was delivered but there is no representation for the 2nd respondent. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner in his usual and imitable style has argued that this is a fit case to quash all further proceedings against the petitioner, who is a practicing advocate. It is submitted that the offence against her is that she had filed solvency certificates by forging the signature of one Gunnam Ravi Kumar, who is the actual advocate for Accused No. 1 and that without having the vakalath, she was instrumental in producing false sureties. Learned counsel for the petitioner argues that this is a case where a judicial officer has mistakenly treated the offence under Section 370-A as a bailable offence and that to cover-up the lapses etc. the present case has been foisted against her. Learned counsel relies upon the judgment reported in Perumal vs. Janaki, Criminal Appeal No. 169 of 2014 (Supreme Court of India) and argues that this is fit case to exercise the power under section 482 of Cr.P.C. (Para 28 of the judgment). Learned counsel argues that a palpably false case has been foisted and he points out that in the trial Court junior counsels appear on behalf of the duly engaged counsel, and do all the procedural work. It is his contention that merely on the basis of the alleged production of sureties she cannot be prosecuted. He points out that without examining the case properly or the facts the charge sheet has been filed and that the police have mechanically investigated the same while being aware of the entire process and a case was registered. It is also his contention that there is no question of forgery at all, let alone forgery for the purpose of cheating. 5. Learned Public Prosecutor on the other hand points out that the complainant in this case was given by the Superintendent of the Court. It is also his contention that there is no question of forgery at all, let alone forgery for the purpose of cheating. 5. Learned Public Prosecutor on the other hand points out that the complainant in this case was given by the Superintendent of the Court. He points out that the advocate, who held vakalath in the particular application for bail, was also examined as LW-4 and he stated that his signatures were forged on the surety papers. He also states that as LW-4 has given a complaint to Bar Association about the advocate, who arranged sureties. Apart from that learned counsel also points out that LW-1 has also stated that the signatures of Sri G. Ravi Kumar, who was engaged as an advocate, was forged and that the petitioner is the person who committed the forgery. Therefore, learned Public Prosecutor submits that although the submissions of the learned senior counsel sound attractive they do not fit in the facts of the case. He points out that this is a serious offence and that this Court should allow the trial to go on and that no case is made out for quashing the proceedings at this stage. 6. This Court after examining the submissions made notices that the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner do appear to be plausible, considering the fact that junior counsels often assist the senior counsels in some cases and sign on behalf of the duly engaged counsel. As pointed out by the learned counsel some time proxy counsels also appear. However, the question is whether the said general practice which appears to have been followed is actually the issue in this case. The junior counsel did not merely appear on behalf of the said G. Ravi Kumar, who had vakalath. The allegation in this case is the signature of the said duly engaged counsel Sri G. Ravi Kumar has been forged. A complaint has also been given by the said G. Ravi Kumar to the Court concerned. The statement of the two witnesses viz. LWs. 1 and 4 also go to show that the statement is specifically made that the signatures of the counsel, who has the vakalath is forged. It is not a case of mere junior advocate appearing for the office or for the senior. The statement of the two witnesses viz. LWs. 1 and 4 also go to show that the statement is specifically made that the signatures of the counsel, who has the vakalath is forged. It is not a case of mere junior advocate appearing for the office or for the senior. As per the submissions this appears to be a case of a counsel who had no instructions and/or a case of a signature being forged. These are all prima facie opinions, which are being expressed at this stage. The statement of LW-4 is to the effect that his signature has been forged and he has already given a complaint in Kakinada Bar Association. The statement of LW-1, who is working as Superintendent of the Court is also to the same effect. 7. This Court is, therefore, of the opinion that this is not the stage to quash the entire proceedings. This Court is also of the opinion that this is not the case in which the extraordinary power vested in this Court should be exercised. Therefore, this Court holds that this is a fit case in which trial should continue and quashing of the proceedings is not called for. The opinions expressed are for the purpose of this Criminal Petition only. The trial Court is at liberty to come to its own conclusions. 8. Accordingly, this Criminal Petition is dismissed. 9. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall also stand dismissed.