Partly allowed

A.Siva Sankar Reddy, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Telangana HC24 Apr 2013CRLP/8597/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single judge quashed criminal proceedings in C.C. No.90/2009 against petitioner A-2 (Office Assistant) for lack of specific allegations while dismissing the petition against A-1 (Office Superintendent) where forgery allegations remained substantiated.

What did the court decide?

Proceedings in C.C. No.90/2009 against Petitioner No.2/A-2 are quashed; petition against Petitioner No.1/A-1 is dismissed.

A.Siva Sankar Reddy, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh — Cheque Dishonour | Telangana HC (2013)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.PRAVEEN KUMAR

¶2

Crl.P.No.8597/2009

¶3

ORAL ORDER:

¶4

The petitioners who are A-1 and A-2 filed the present criminal petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., to quash the proceedings in CC No.90/2009 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate, Atmakur, which was taken on file against them for an offence punishable under Section 468 IPC.

¶5

2. The case of the prosecution is as follows: On 17-8-2007 one Ratna Swamy, who is the second respondent herein lodged a report with Sub-Inspector of Police, Velgode Police Station, Kurnool District, which was registered as Cr.No.60/2007 of Velgode Police Station for an offence punishable under Section 468 IPC. According to him, SNSR Degree College, Velgode, Kurnool District has certain bank transactions pertaining to the account of SNSR degree College. The Office Superintendent (A-1) is alleged to have forged the signature of the Bank Manager of SBI, Atmakur along with the rubber stamp of SBI to show that an amount of Rs.12138/- was deposited in the account of SBI, Atmakur branch and produced a copy of the challan at the college. But according to prosecution and bank officials, no amount was actually deposited in SBI. It is alleged that A-1 produced the said challan alleged to have issued by SBI to the college authorities without depositing any amount in SBI, Atmakur. According to him the said amount was paid in the Syndicate Bank, Velgode instead of SBI, Atmakur Branch meaning thereby that the amount was deposited into the account of management in stead of depositing in Government account. The Branch Manager of SBI, Atmakur is alleged to have informed the informant that the signature and rubber stamp put on the challan was not that of SBI, Atmakur and that the said challan which was produced before the college was forged and fabricated. In view of the nature of transaction involved, a report has been lodged by the college authorities against the petitioners who are office Superintendent and Office Assistant in the said College. The police

¶6

investigated into the matter and filed a final report referring the case as mistake of fact. Thereafter, the informant filed a protest petition and after recording the sworn statement, the trial court took cognizance of the case for an offence under Sec. 468 IPC.

¶7

3. In the protest petition, allegations made in the information report are reiterated. As per the protest petition, A-1 is alleged to have deposited Rs.12138/- in State Bank of India, Atmakur and enclosed challan bearing No.975 dt. 31-3-1999. The defect was pointed out in the audit and on verification, it was found that A-1 and A-2 instead of depositing in SBI, Atmakur have deposited the same in Syndicate Bank, Velgode with an evil intention to degrade the reputation of the management of the college in particular the defacto-complainant. The Principal of SNSR Degree College addressed a letter to the Education Department vide letter dt. 20-1-2007 informing about the illegal act of the accused stating that A-1 used the SBI challan with false rubber stamp and forged the signature of the Bank Manager by enclosing the statement of the office staff and forwarded a copy of the same to the Regional Joint Director, Kadapa. The petition further discloses that the Bank Manager clearly mentioned in his letter that the bank seal is a fake one and the signatures was also forged. It is alleged that due to influence of the accused, no action was taken by the police. It is alleged that the police have not investigated into the matter properly even though there are clear allegations against accused. The material in the form of complaints made by the Principal of the College and also the Branch Manager, SBI, Atmakur with regard to creation of forged document clearly disclose that the accused have intentionally deposited the said amount only with a view to defame the college and also cause wrongful gain to the college. The sworn statement of the complainant recorded at the time of taking cognizance reiterates what has been stated by him in the protest petition.

¶8

4. Heard Sri D.V.Sitharama Murthy, the learned Senior Counsel representing Sri N. Ashwin Kumar, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and also the learned Public Prosecutor for the first

¶9

respondent/State. In spite of matter being adjourned several times, Sri G.Bhasker, the learned counsel for Respondent-2, did not choose to appear.

¶10

5. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners contends that there is a dispute regarding Correspondent-ship of SNSR Degree College, Velgode, between the defacto-complainant and the wife of the first petitioner from 2005 onwards, which resulted in filing of several writ petitions and writ appeals by the informant (second respondent) herein. The matter between them is pending before the Government for deciding the issue with regard to recognizing the Correspondent-ship in favour of the wife of the first petitioner. According to him, as a counter-blast to the said dispute, the defacto complainant lodged the present private complaint only to wreck vengeance against the petitioners. It is further contended that the police have investigated into the matter and filed a final report closing the case as mistake of fact. The protest petition which has been filed is a repetition of what has been stated earlier by the second respondent. Since the matter was investigated by an independent agency, wherein they found that the allegations are false, asking the accused to face trial for the very same allegations amounts to abuse of process of Court.

¶11

6. On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor would contend that even if the police file final report by closing the case as mistake of fact still the allegations made in the sworn statement and the protest petition would make out a prima facie case against the accused. Since the allegations made in the protest petition and the sworn statement do disclose commission of offence of forgery, the learned Public Prosecutor submits that it is not a case for invoking the inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C., for quashing the said proceedings.

¶12

7. I n Shiji Vs. Radhika^[1] the Apex Court observed that “the plenitude of the power under Section 482 CrPC by itself, makes it obligatory for the High Court to exercise the same with utmost care and

¶13

caution. The width and the nature of the power itself demands that its exercise is sparing and only in cases where the High Court is, for reasons to be recorded, of the clear view that continuance of the prosecution would be nothing but an abuse of the process of law. It is neither necessary nor proper for us to enumerate the situations in which the exercise of power under Section 482 may be justified. All that we need to say is that the exercise of power must be for securing the ends of justice and only in cases where refusal to exercise that power may result in the abuse of the process of law. The High Court may be justified in declining interference if it is called upon to appreciate evidence for it cannot assume the role of an appellate court while dealing with a petition under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code. Subject to the above, the High Court will have to consider the facts and circumstances of each case to determine whether it is a fit case in which the inherent powers may be invoked.”

¶14

8. As held by the Apex Court, in many cases, that Section 482 Cr.P.C., envisages three circumstances, under which inherent jurisdiction may be exercised by the High Court, namely, (1) to give effect to an order the Code of Criminal Procedure; (2) to prevent the abuse of the process of court; and (3) to secure the ends of justice. The Apex Court further held that the said power has to be exercised sparingly, carefully and cautiously, ex debito justitiae to do real and substantial justice for which alone the Court exists.

¶15

9. A perusal of the final report filed by the police would disclose that the police in their investigation found that on 31-3-1999 as per instructions of the second respondent therein, the Senior Assistant, M. V.Ramanaiah, prepared a cheque for Rs.20,219/- and withdrawn the said amount from the account No.9078 of Syndicate Bank, Velgode. Out of the drawn amount, L.W.2-Ch. Anantha Siva Prasad, Store Keeper prepared a challan for a sum of Rs.12138/- towards interest amount of SC/ST scholarship and after getting the signature of the Principal, handed over the challan to the Senior Assistant for remitting the amount in

¶16

Government account. On further instructions from the Correspondent ie., second respondent and the Principal, the Senior Assistant and the Office Superintendent deposited the said amount in Syndicate Bank, Velgode, in Management Account No.9078 for using the same for college welfare though there are no specific orders from their higher authorities. Their investigation further discloses that the complainant himself admitted that an amount of Rs.12,138/- was deposited in the Management Account at Syndicate Bank, Velgode. Thus, he is aware about the said amount being deposited in the management account instead of depositing the same in Government account. When the second respondent is aware about the said transaction and if really it was done intentionally by the petitioners, the second respondent could have withdrawn the said amount and remit the same in Government account as he is running the said account. Since no amount was misappropriated and there is no evidence with regard to fake stamping, the police referred the case as mistake of fact on the ground that the said allegations could not justify a charge for an offence punishable under Section 468 IPC.

¶17

10. A perusal of the complaint and the sworn statement would show that A-1 under the guidance of the Principal has maintained Government transactions in State Bank of India, Atmakur, and the management transactions in Syndicate Bank, Velgode. It was reported by the principal to the Regional Joint Director, Kadapa that the accused has not deposited the amount of Rs.12138/- in State Bank of India, Atmakur but the said amount was deposited in Syndicate Bank at Velgode. The said fact came to light during audit verification. It was also came to light that A-1 used SBI challan with fake rubber stamp and forged the signature of the bank manager by enclosing the statement of office staff and forwarded a copy of the same to Regional Joint Director, Kadapa to show that the amount was deposited in Government account whereas in fact the said amount was deposited in Syndicate Bank. On coming to know about the same, the second respondent informed the same by marking a copy to Branch Manager, SBI and Regional Manager to take

¶18

action against the accused. On verification, the Branch Manager addressed a letter dt. 6-6-2007 to the Inspector of Police, Atmakur requesting him to take action against the accused. In the said letter, the Branch Manager categorically stated that the bank seal is fake and signature on the challan are forged.

¶19

11. In view of the specific allegations made against the first petitioner and in view of the fact that the said transaction took place at the instance of the first petitioner and the Bank Manager denied his signature and also the rubber stamp, it cannot be said, that a false case has been foisted only as a counter blast to the dispute between the second respondent and the wife of the first petitioner. However, as noticed above, no allegations are directed against the second petitioner who was only an office assistant in SNSR Degree College at Velgode. No specific allegations are made against the second petitioner either with regard to depositing the amount in State Bank of India, Atmakur or with regard to forgery of the signature of the Bank Manager. In fact the original complaint as well as subsequent protest petition are directed only against the first petitioner/A-1. Since the allegations made in the protest petition and in sworn statement, prima facie constitute an offence against A-1, further proceedings against him cannot be interdicted by invoking inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C.,

¶20

12. Accordingly this Criminal petition is partly allowed and the proceedings in C.C.No.90/2009 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Atmakur, in so far as petitioner No.2/A-2 are concerned, are hereby quashed. However, this petition, in so far as petitioner No.1/A.1 is concerned, is dismissed.

¶21

C. PRAVEEN KUMAR, J.

¶22

Date: 24.04.2013. KMR

¶23

24-4-2013:

¶24

After pronouncement of the order, the learned counsel for the petitioners makes a request to dispense with the presence of petitioner No.1/A-

¶25

1 in the said CC.

¶26

In the facts and circumstances of the case, and also in view of the nature of litigation, the presence of petitioner No.1/A-1 is dispensed with on all dates of adjournments except on the dates when his presence is specifically required by the trial Court.

¶27

C. PRAVEEN KUMAR, J.

¶28

[1] 2011 (10) SCC 705

A.Siva Sankar Reddy, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

A.Siva Sankar Reddy, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. Razia Begum, (A1) Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

M. Venkateswara Rao , Venkanna Swamy Naidu, Vs The Sho, Penugonda Police Station

Padakanti Sreeramulu, Vs Padakanti Veeresham

Maddi Satyanarayana, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Kunukuntla Sreedhar, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Pyla Venkata Ramana Vs The State of a.P., Rep. by P.P., High Court of A.P.