9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (9) TMI 1262X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed 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 an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sion. 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... opted 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. - ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mithi. Upon being informed that it was fictitious, Respondent No. 2 asked for a detailed enquiry to be conducted to ascertain who had forged the said letter and signature of Shri M.A. Khan, M.P., on the complaint. Meanwhile, Shri V. Dinesh Reddy-Respondent No. 2, was appointed as Director General of Police, A.P. on 30.6.2011. C. The State Government asked the Additional D.G.P., Crime Investigation Department, namely Shri S.V. Ramana Murthi to enquire and submit a report to the Government in respect of fabricating the letter and forging the signature of Shri M.A. Khan, M.P. The said officer Shri Ramana Murthi did not conduct any enquiry himself, rather he entrusted the same to one Shri M. Malla Reddy, Deputy SP, CID. After conducting the enquiry, Shri Malla Reddy submitted the enquiry report to Addl. D.G.P., CID on 22.8.2011, pointing out that one Shri T. Sunil Reddy obtained certified copy of the documents from the office of the Sub-Registrar on the instructions of some senior officer. The said certified copies were the same as the ones that had been annexed along with the complaint submitted in the name of the Samithi. D. On the same day, i.e. 22.8.2011, Shri Ramana Murthi, Addl. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e impugned judgment and order dated 11.4.2012 quashed the charge sheet only in part as referred to hereinabove. Hence, these cross appeals. 3. The matter was heard at length and after considering the gravity of the allegations against Respondent No. 2 and his alleged involvement, this Court issued notice to him suo motu and after hearing his counsel he was impleaded as a Respondent. 4. Shri Rakesh Dwivedi, learned senior counsel appearing for Umesh Kumar, Appellant has submitted that the purported complaint sent by Shri M.A. Khan, M.P., to the Central Government was duly supported by a large number of documents showing that Respondent No. 2 had amassed wealth which was disproportionate to his known sources of income. His wife had purchased various benami properties. The certified copies of the said sale deeds are admissible in evidence in court. Even if the allegations against Umesh Kumar, Appellant are correct, there could have been a fair enquiry on the said allegations against Respondent No. 2. However, the State of A.P. discriminated against the Appellant and has taken no action whatsoever till today to examine whether the said Respondent has acquired disproportionate assets. W ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Respondent No. 2 being the head of the police department has rightly issued the direction to lodge an FIR and investigate the matter. The High Court committed an error entertaining his petition Under Section 482 Code of Criminal Procedure without any ground. As it was at the pre-emptive stage the matter could have been examined by the competent court; issues raised by Umesh Kumar could have been examined at the time of framing of the charges; and he could have filed an application for discharge. As charges can be altered at any stage during the trial, the High Court could not have quashed the charge sheet in respect of only Section 468 Indian Penal Code. Thus, the appeal filed by Umesh Kumar is liable to the dismissed and the appeal filed by the State deserves to be allowed. 6. Shri U.U. Lalit, learned senior counsel appearing for Respondent No. 2 has submitted that by filing a complaint in the fictitious name and forging the signature of Shri M.A. Khan, M.P., the reputation of Respondent No. 2 was put at stake. Admittedly, the complaint was in a fictitious name and with a forged signature. A case had been registered in respect of the same with Delhi Police, however, it could not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dl. D.G.P., Crime Investigation Department would conduct the enquiry into the above issues and submit a report to the Government at an early date. The copy of the same was sent to Respondent No. 2 and to the Central Government in addition to the Addl. D.G.P. 9. Admittedly, no attempt has ever been made by any person to hold the enquiry relating to the genuineness of the allegations in the complaint purported to have been signed by Shri M.A. Khan, M.P. The letter dated 24.8.2011 makes it clear that before the report could reach the Government, Respondent No. 2 directed that an FIR be lodged, enquiry conducted and the report of the same be submitted to his office. The documents revealed that the statement made by Shri T. Sunil Reddy after his arrest did not reveal the name of Umesh Kumar. However, when he was in police custody and his statement was recorded a second time he named the Appellant. It is also evident that he was made an approver with the help of the public prosecutor and later on the said order of the trial court was set aside by the High Court at the behest of Umesh Kumar. 10. The aforesaid facts clearly reveal the following things: (I) Even if the said complaint was in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aced a large number of sale deeds in respect of land purported to have been purchased by Respondent No. 2's wife and her sister Smt. S. Nalini between 1998 and 2005, either in her name or her relatives or General Power of Attorney holders. (VIII) The High Court partly quashed the charge sheet observing that the offence Under Section 468 Indian Penal Code is not made out. Case against Umesh Kumar - Appellant: 11. 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. Thus, scandal and defamation are injurious to reputation. Reputation has been defined in dictionary as to have a good name; the credit, honor, or character which is derived from a favourable public opinion or esteem and character by report . 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 el ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... edure 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. (Vide: Pepsi Food Ltd. and Anr. v. Special Judicial Magistrate and Ors. AIR 1998 SC 128; Ashok Chaturvedi and Ors. v. Shitulh Chanchani and Anr. AIR 1998 SC 2796; G. Sagar Suri and Anr. v. State of U.P. and Ors. AIR 2000 SC 754; and Padal Venkata Rama Reddy @ Ramu v. Kovvuri Satyanarayana Reddy and Ors. (2011) 12 SCC 437) 13. In Rajiv Thapar v. Madan Lal Kapoor 2013 (3) SCC 330, this Court while dealing with the issue held as follows: Based on the factors canvassed in the foregoing paragraphs, we would delineate the following steps to determine the veracity of a prayer for quashing, raised by an accused by invoking the power vested in the High Court Un ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ell-established proposition of law that a criminal prosecution, if otherwise justifiable and based upon adequate evidence does not become vitiated on account of mala fides or political vendetta of the first informant or complainant. 16. In Parkash Singh Badal v. State of Punjab and Ors. AIR 2007 SC 1274, this Court held as under: The ultimate test, therefore, is whether the allegations have any substance. An investigation should not be shut out at the threshold because a political opponent or a person with political difference raises an allegation of commission of offence. Therefore, the plea of mala fides as raised cannot be maintained. 17. In State of A.P. v. Goloconda Linga Swamy and Anr. AIR 2004 SC 3967, this Court held as under: It is the material collected during the investigation and evidence led in court which decides the fate of the accused person. The allegations of mala fides against the informant are of no consequence and cannot by themselves be the basis for quashing the proceeding. (See also: K. Karunakaran v. State of Kerala (2007) 1 SCC 59). 18. Thus, in view of the above, it becomes evident that in case there is some substance in the allegations and material exist ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ld 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? 22. In State of Maharashtra v. Salman Salim Khan AIR 2004 SC 1189, this Court depreciated the practice of entertaining the petition Under Section 482 Code of Criminal Procedure at a pre-mature stage of the proceedings observing as under: ....The arguments regarding the framing of a proper charge are best left to be decided by the trial court at an appropriate stage of the trial. Otherwise as observed in this case, proceedings get protracted by the intervention of the superior courts.... The High Court by the impugned order had allowed the said application quashing the charge Under Section 304 Indian Penal Code against the Respondent herein while it maintained the other charges and direct the Magistrate's court to frame the de novo charges...... We are of the opinion that though it is open to a High Court entertaining a petition Under Section 482 of the Code to quash charges framed by the trial Court, same cannot be done by weighing the correctne ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d finality, the provisions of Section 216 Code of Criminal Procedure 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: 26. The complaint was initially made in respect of acquiring huge immovable properties by Respondent No. 2 in his name and in the name of his wife, and the Central Government had asked the State Government to conduct an inquiry into the said allegations. 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. Even though the complaint was bogus, however, the sale deeds annexed along with the same though illegally collected by someone, have not been ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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. 30. Attestation of the undated affidavit is in utter disregard to the provisions of Section 139 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. (hereinafter referred to as the 'Code of Civil Procedure'). 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
