2013 (9) TMI 1262 - SC - Indian Laws

Offence Punishable u/s 468, 471, 120B and 201 of IPC - Complaint was initially made for disproportionate assets made by the Respondent No. 2 by purchase of huge lands either by himself or in the name of his wife or through benamis - Shri M.A. Khan, M.P. vide letter dated 23.5.2011 pointed out to the Central Government that he had not signed the complaint and his signature had been forged - Central Government had asked the State Government to conduct an inquiry into the said allegations - charge sheet filed and the cognizance had been taken by the magistrate concerned - the committal proceedings have not yet taken place; and some of the offences attracted in this case are exclusively triable by the Sessions Court. Umesh Kumar, Appellant approached the High Court u/s 482 CrPC and the charge sheet has been partly quashed observing that the provisions of Section 468 IPC are not attracted - whether such an order attained finality and in case the evidence is adduced before the court concerned, whether the trial court can still hold that the applicant is required to be tried for the offence Under Section 468 Indian Penal Code and further whether the trial would be competent on the said charge in exercise of its power Under Section 216 Code of Criminal Procedure? Case against Umesh Kumar - Appellant - HELD THAT - Allegations against any person if found to be false or made forging some one else signature may affect his reputation. Reputation is a sort of right to enjoy the good opinion of others and it is a personal right and an enquiry to reputation is a personal injury. Personal rights of a human being include the right of reputation. A good reputation is an element of personal security and is protected by the Constitution equally with the right to the enjoyment of life, liberty and property. Therefore, it has been held to be a necessary element in regard to right to life of a citizen under Article 21 of the Constitution. International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights 1966 recognises the right to have opinions and the right of freedom of expression under Article 19 is subject to the right of reputation of others. In view thereof, if any person has forged in a letter under the name of the Samithi and forged the signature of Shri M.A. Khan, M.P., the matter being of grave nature requires investigation and, in view of above, we cannot find fault with the action initiated against Umesh Kumar, Appellant. Once criminal law is put in motion and after investigation the charge sheet is filed, it requires scrutiny in the court of law. However, before the charges could be framed, Umesh Kumar, Appellant, approached the High Court u/s 482 CrPC for quashing of the charge sheet. However, in exercise of such powers, it is not permissible for the High Court to appreciate the evidence as it can only evaluate material documents on record to the extent of its prima facie satisfaction about the existence of sufficient ground for proceedings against the accused and the court cannot look into materials, the acceptability of which is essentially a matter for trial. Any document filed along with the petition labelled as evidence without being tested and proved, cannot be examined. The scope of Section 482 CrPC is well defined and inherent powers could be exercised by the High Court to give effect to an order under the CrPC; to prevent abuse of the process of court; and to otherwise secure the ends of justice. This extraordinary power is to be exercised ex debito justitiae . Law does not prohibit entertaining the petition u/s 482 CrPC for quashing the charge sheet even before the charges are framed or before the application of discharge is filed or even during its pendency of such application before the court concerned. The High Court cannot reject the application merely on the ground that the accused can argue legal and factual issues at the time of the framing of the charge. However, the inherent power of the court should not be exercised to stifle the legitimate prosecution but can be exercised to save the accused to undergo the agony of a criminal trial. Thus, it becomes evident that in case there is some substance in the allegations and material exists to substantiate the complicity of the applicant, the case is to be examined in its full conspectus and the proceedings should not be quashed only on the ground that the same had been initiated with mala fides to wreak vengeance or to achieve an ulterior goal. Thus, in view of above, the order of the High Court impugned before us cannot be termed as a final decision. The order is subject to further order which could be passed by the trial court u/s 216 CrPC, on the basis of the evidence to be led during trial. If the impugned order is dubbed as having attained finality, the provisions of Section 216 CrPC would render otiose/nugatory. Thus, the same is to be read that the said order had been passed taking into consideration the material which was available at that stage and it is still open to the trial court to add or alter the charges according to the evidence produced before it. Complaint against Respondent No. 2 - HELD THAT - The complaint may be forged or fabricated, but it is nobody's case that the copies of sale deeds annexed along with the said complaint were not genuine. While issuing direction to hold inquiry/investigation as to who had fabricated the said complaint and forged the signatures of Shri M.A. Khan, M.P., the allegations of acquiring properties by the Respondent No. 2 have been abandoned and unattended altogether. It is a settled legal proposition that even if a document is procured by improper or illegal means, there is no bar to its admissibility if it is relevant and its genuineness is proved. If the evidence is admissible, it does not matter how it has been obtained. However, as a matter of caution, the court in exercise of its discretion may disallow certain evidence in a criminal case if the strict rules of admissibility would operate unfairly against the accused. More so, the court must conclude that it is genuine and free from tampering or mutilation. This Court repelled the contention that obtaining evidence illegally by using tape recordings or photographs offend Articles 20(3) and 21 of the Constitution of India as acquiring the evidence by such methods was not the procedure established by law. (Vide Yusufalli Esmail Nagree v. The State of Maharashtra 1967 (4) TMI 199 - SUPREME COURT . In reply to our order dated 24.7.2013, the Chief Secretary has filed an undated affidavit though attested by a Joint Secretary to Govt. of A.P., and has given numerous explanations in respect of the alleged pseudonymous petition filed with a fictitious name of the Samithi and with the forged signature of Shri M.A. Khan, M.P. The Chief Secretary has taken the plea that the Government of A.P. could not investigate an enquiry about the disproportionate assets of the Respondent No. 2 in view of the fact that the High Court of Andhra Pradesh vide order dated 2.5.2013 stayed the operation of the learned Single Judge's order to conduct an enquiry into the allegations. The Chief Secretary to the Govt. of Andhra Pradesh has not revealed whether a preliminary enquiry or a domestic enquiry had ever been conducted till 2.5.2013 when the High Court passed the restraint order. The complaint was filed on 22.4.2011 and more than two years had elapsed when the High Court passed the order. No explanation has been furnished as to why for two years the enquiry could not be held in this regard. Attestation of the undated affidavit is in utter disregard to the provisions of Section 139 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 . The Supreme Court Rules 1966 under Order XI, Rule 7 also require adherence to the provisions of Section 139 Code of Civil Procedure . Hence, his reply is not worth taking on record and being undated, renders the same to be a piece of waste paper. Therefore, we have no hesitation to hold that the Chief Secretary had the audacity not to ensure the compliance of the order of this Court dated 24.7.2013, and we have no words to express our anguish and condemn the attitude adopted by the Chief Secretary. More so, holding such a responsible post in the State, he must have some sense of responsibility and should have been aware of what are the minimum requirements of law, and even if he did not know he could have consulted any law officer of the State before filing the undated affidavit. Be that as it may, facts of the case warranted some enquiry in respect of the allegations of acquiring huge properties by Shri V. Dinesh Reddy - Respondent No. 2. The State took the courage to flout the order of the Central Government and did not look into the contents of the complaint and misdirected the enquiry against Umesh Kumar, Appellant. In such a fact-situation, this Court would not fail in its duty to direct the enquiry in those allegations. The appeals are disposed of directing the CBI to investigate the matter against Shri V. Dinesh Reddy - Respondent No. 2 on the allegations of acquiring the disproportionate assets. However, this should not be considered as expressing any opinion upon the merits of the case. The Chief Secretary to the Government of Andhra Pradesh is directed to make the copies of the said sale deeds available to the CBI for investigation.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Quashing of the charge sheet under Section 468 IPC.
2. Investigation of disproportionate assets against Respondent No. 2.
3. Validity of the complaint and the forged signature of Shri M.A. Khan, M.P.
4. Role of Umesh Kumar in the alleged conspiracy.
5. Procedural propriety and legal standards for quashing charges under Section 482 CrPC.
6. State Government's conduct in handling the investigation.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Quashing of the Charge Sheet under Section 468 IPC:
The High Court quashed the charge sheet under Section 468 IPC, stating that the offence was not made out. However, the Supreme Court noted that the High Court's order is not final and the trial court retains the power to add or alter charges based on evidence presented during the trial under Section 216 CrPC. The court emphasized that the High Court should not prematurely quash charges without considering the full scope of evidence.

2. Investigation of Disproportionate Assets against Respondent No. 2:
The Supreme Court directed the CBI to investigate allegations against Respondent No. 2 regarding the acquisition of disproportionate assets. Despite the complaint being potentially forged, the sale deeds annexed were not disputed as genuine. The State Government's failure to investigate these allegations was criticized, and the court mandated an inquiry into the matter.

3. Validity of the Complaint and the Forged Signature of Shri M.A. Khan, M.P.:
The complaint purportedly signed by Shri M.A. Khan, M.P., was found to be forged. The State Government was instructed to investigate who forged the letter and obtained the documents. The Supreme Court highlighted the importance of investigating the authenticity of the allegations, regardless of the forged nature of the complaint.

4. Role of Umesh Kumar in the Alleged Conspiracy:
Umesh Kumar was implicated based on the statements of Shri T. Sunil Reddy, who initially did not name him but later did so while in police custody. The court found that the matter required thorough investigation and that the High Court should not have quashed the charge sheet prematurely. The trial court was deemed the appropriate forum to scrutinize the evidence.

5. Procedural Propriety and Legal Standards for Quashing Charges under Section 482 CrPC:
The Supreme Court outlined the limited scope of Section 482 CrPC, emphasizing that inherent powers should be exercised sparingly to prevent abuse of process or to secure justice. The court reiterated that the High Court should not evaluate the sufficiency of evidence at the stage of quashing charges, as this is a matter for the trial court to determine.

6. State Government's Conduct in Handling the Investigation:
The State Government's handling of the investigation was criticized for focusing solely on Umesh Kumar while neglecting the allegations against Respondent No. 2. The Chief Secretary's affidavit was found to be defective and undated, reflecting a lack of compliance with the Supreme Court's order. The court expressed its disapproval of the State's conduct and directed a thorough investigation by the CBI.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court disposed of the appeals by directing the CBI to investigate the allegations against Respondent No. 2 regarding disproportionate assets and allowed the trial against Umesh Kumar to proceed. The court emphasized the importance of a fair and thorough investigation and the proper exercise of judicial discretion in quashing charges. The Chief Secretary was instructed to provide necessary documents to the CBI, and a status report was requested within four months.