The Hon'ble Court quashed the criminal proceedings against the petitioner under Section 167 IPC, holding that the provision applies only to public servants and does not attract against a private individual.
The proceedings against the petitioner in Crime No.36 of 2012 are quashed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
*** HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE S.RAVI KUMAR**
+ CRIMINAL PETITION No.8226 of 2012
% 05.08.2014
#Ravada Thavitamma, W/o.Late Yerrayya, Aged 60 years, House hold duties, R/o.Almajipeta Village, Dallavalasa (B.P.O) Ponduru Mandal, Srikakulam District.
...Petitioner/ Accused No.5
VERSUS
$1. State of A.P., through its Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad
...Respondents/ respondent
2. Kuna Raghurama Patro, S/o.Late Sanyasi, Aged 68 years, R/o.Penubarthi Village, Tadivalasa B.P.O., via Dusi R.S., Ponduru Mandal, Srikakulam District (de facto complainant) (died on 21.05.2011 as per the death Certificate issued by Panchayat Secretary Pembarthi-hence not a necessary party)
...Respondent/ de facto complainant
< GIST:
> HEAD NOTE:
!Counsel for Petitioner: M.VISWANADHAM
^Counsel for Respondent: ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
? Cases referred
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE S.RAVI KUMAR
CRIMINAL PETITION No.8226 of 2012
O R D E R:
This criminal petition is filed to quash proceedings in FIR No.36 of 2012 of Ponduru PS, Srikakulam District for alleged offence punishable under Section 167 IPC.
2. Heard both sides.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that on a reading of entire complaint, the ingredients of offence under Section 167 IPC are not applicable to the petitioner. It is submitted that these allegations would attract if this petitioner is a public servant, therefore the complaint is nothing but abuse of process of Court. It is submitted that the land in survey No.71/17 of Gorinta Village, Ponduru Mandal, Srikakulam District stands in the name of petitioner’s family, for that reason she is implicated only to harass her. It is submitted that the de facto complainant, who lodged the complaint, is in the habit of filing cases against Government servants and harassing them and after filing of this complaint into Court, he died and as on today he is no more.
4. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the matter is
still under investigation.
5. I have perused the material papers filed along with quash petition.
6. Second respondent herein filed a private complaint before the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Rajam against eight accused and the petitioner is A-5. The offence alleged against the petitioner is under Section 167 IPC.
7. The main contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is the provisions under Section 167 IPC are not applicable to petitioner. To appreciate the contention of the
petitioner, it is necessary to read Section 167 IPC, which reads as follows:
167. Public servant framing an incorrect document with intent to cause injury: Whoever, being a public servant, and being, as [such public servant, charged with the preparation or translation of any document or electronic record, frames, prepares or translates that document or electronic record] in a manner which he knows or believes to be incorrect, intending thereby to cause or knowing it to be likely that he may thereby cause injury to any person, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both.
From a reading of the above provision, it is clear this offence is against the public servant who indulges in framing an incorrect document with intent to cause injury. Admittedly, the petitioner is not a public servant and she is only holder of pattadar pass book for some land in Gorantla Village. As rightly pointed out by learned counsel for petitioner, to attract the ingredients under Section 167 IPC, there must be material to show that the petitioner is entrusted with preparation of any document or translation of any document.
8. The petitioner being a private individual cannot be expected of entrusting the job of preparation of any document or translation of document. As rightly pointed out by learned counsel for petitioner, if the respondent is aggrieved with the patta granted in favour of the petitioner herein his remedy is to approach appropriate forum and challenge the same but he cannot adopt arm twist method of setting criminal law into motion.
9. The learned Magistrate while forwarding the complaint to the police without verifying as to the role of the petitioner in the alleged commission of offence mechanically forwarded the complaint for investigation. For these reasons, I feel that it is a fit
case to invoke the powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C and to quash the proceedings.
10. For these reasons, the proceedings against the petitioner in Crime No.36 of 2012 are hereby quashed. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed.
11. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this appeal, shall stand closed.
____________________ JUSTICE S.RAVI KUMAR
5th August 2014
Note: LR Copy be marked B/o. Knl
2 issues framed by the court
Whether Section 167 IPC applies to a private individual who is not a public servant.
Whether criminal proceedings against a private landholder for alleged document fraud should be quashed under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Ravada Thavitamma
State of A.P.
Kuna Raghurama Patro
S. Ravikumar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
