Allowed

Vodanala Narsimha Babu v. State of Telangana

Telangana HC21 Jul 2022CRLP/4683/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court quashed criminal proceedings initiated against the petitioner for allegedly cheating and committing mischief by falsely stating his relationship in an affidavit filed to obtain certified court records. The court held that no loss or damage was caused to the complainant and the grievance, if any, lay with the court.

What did the court decide?

The Criminal Proceedings (C.C.) No. 2010 of 2019 filed against the petitioner in the Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Warangal, are hereby quashed.

Vodanala Narsimha Babu Vs State of Telangana — Quashing and FIR | Telangana HC (2022)

¶1

,/7

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶3

THURSDAY, THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY TWO

¶4

-.,-.

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE D.NAGARJUN^'2.

¶7

CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 4683 OF 2022

¶8

Between:

¶9

Vodanala Narsimha Babu, S/o. Vistaraiah, Aged 63 years, Occ. Retired, R/o, flat No. 204, H.No.2-5-267, Sri Krishna Enclave, Nakkalagutta, Hanam konda.

¶10

...Petitioners/Accused

¶11

AND

¶12

'1 . The State of Telangana, represented by its Public Prosecutor, High Court, Hyderabad.

¶13

Nalla Jagadeesh Babu, S/o. Mallaiah, Aged 53 years, Occ. Medical Practitioner, R/o. H.No. 1 B-3-198, Ursu, Warangal.

¶14

...Respondents/Complainant

¶15

Petition under Section 482. ot Cr.P.C praying that in the^' circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to quash the C.C.No.20'10 of 2019, on the file of the Vl Additional Judicial First Class fUagistrate, Warangal filed against the petitioner/Accused all6ging offences U/Sections 417,42O, 425 IPC.

¶16

l.A. NO: 1OF 2020

¶17

Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C praying. that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to grant stay of all further proceedings in the C.C.No.2010 of 2019, on the file of the Vl Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Warangal filed against the petitioner/Accused alleging offences U/Sections 417,420, 425 lPC.

¶18

¶19

This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of M/s CMR Velu, Advocate for the Petitioner and the Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No.1 and of Sri A. Prabhakar Rao, Advocate for the Respondent No.2

¶20

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶21

THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE D. NAGARJUN

¶22

CRIMINAL PETITION No.4683 OF 2O2O

¶23

ORDER:

¶24

This petition is Iiled seeking quashment of C.C.No.201O of 2Ol9 on the file of the VI Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Warangal

¶25

The facts of the case as can be gathered from the charge sheet, are as under:

¶26

OnO2.O4.2O19 at 1.30 p.m., the de-facto complainant has filed a private complaint under Section 200 Cr.P.C., against the petitioner/ accused stating that his daughter Pallavi, the wife of Dr. B. Praveen has filed a complaint on which police after investigation has filed charge sheet in C.C.No.2832 of 2018 for the offence under Section 498-4 IPC and other offences.

¶27

4 . The petitioner/ accused by misrepresenting, impersonating, playing fraud and cheating has dishonestly submitted an affidavit in Cr1.M.P.No.203B of 2O18 in Crime No.35 of 20 18 before the Judicia,l First Ciass Magistrate, Warangal. In the affidavit filed in Crl.M.P.No.2038 of 2018, the petitioner, though not related with the de-facto complainant's

¶28

¶29

family and his daughter at any point of time w'ith arly sort of relation, dishonestly misrepresented the Court and made a false declaration that he is the father of Pallavi, the de-facto complainalt in the said crime. Pallavi is the daughter of the de-facto complainant herein and not the d aughter of the petitioner. The petitioner is a stranger and thel' u,ere never had any relationship with the de-facto complainant's family.

¶30

The de-facto complainant has filed a complaint before the police, Subedari and Commissioner of Police, Warangal, through registered post with acknowledgement due, dated 22.12.2018. When the police refused to receive and register the case, the complaint is filed before the learned Magistrate along with sworn affidavit. The complaint $'as relerred to the police by the learned Magistrate under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., and on receipt of the same, police have registered the same as FIR in Crime No.131 of 2Ol9 for the offence under Sections 417, 42O, 425 lPC. Aggrieved by the registration of FIR, the present petition is filed seeking quashment of FIR

¶31

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is not a stranger to the de-facto

-__=---7

)

complainant's family, as the daughter of the de-facto complainant has stated in her statement under Section 16 1 Cr.P.C., that the petitioner is the relative of her mother-in-1aw. It is submitted further that in the affidavit fiied in support of the petition filed under Rule i8B(2) of the Civil Rules of Practice instead of typing as "grand daughter", due to type mistake as "daughter" and that inadvertent mistake cannot be the basis to register a criminal case and he has committed no offence. It is submitted further that there is no intention or mensrea, there is no destruction or damage or chalge in the property, there is no diminishing of the value or utility, thereby Section 425 lPC is not applicabie and that the contents of the compiaint do not constitute that the petitioner has committed cheating with dishonest intention to take the property of another person or inducing to deliver the property. It is aiso submitted that as per Rule 1BB(2) of the Civil Rules of Practice, a third party can obtain certified copies when good cause is shown.

¶36

A photocopy of the affidavit, which was typed on a nonjudicial stamp paper worth Rs.20/- signed by the petitioner/ accused is filed, wherein it is mentioned as under:

L--)

"AFFIDAVIT

I, Vodnala Narasimha Babu, S/o. Vistararah, Aged 61 years, Occu: Retired Employee, R/o. Flat No.204. H.No.2-5267, Srikrishna Enclave, Nakkalagutta. Hanamkonda, Warangal District, do hreby solemnly affirm and state on oath as under:

¶42

I am the petitioner herein third party to the proceedings in the above crime and I am acquainted with the facts of the case.

¶43

I submit ttrat my daushter (N. Pallavil has filed the above case against Praveen, u/s. 498-A, 506 of lPC. I submit that I am in need of certified copies of FIR along rvitl-r complaint for the purpose of record and verification, I arn ready to pay whatever stamps required for preparation of certified copies of the said record.

¶44

Hence, it is just and proper to order to issue certified copies of FIR & complaint, and pass such other orders in the interest ofjustice.

¶45

sd/-

¶46

DEPONENT

¶47

VERIFICATION: Solemnly affrrmed and signed before me by the Deponent on this 11!h day of September, 2018 at Hartamkonda."

¶48

B. The only grievance of the de-facto complainant is that at second para of the afhdavit there is a mention that M.Paliavi is the daughter of the petitioner. According to the de-facto complainant, the petitioner herein is no n'av connected with M.Pallavi, his daughter. He has also staterl in Section 161 Cr.P.C., statement that the petitioner is not at all related to the de-facto complainant. In the private complaint, he was more

¶49

¶50

specific to the effect that the petitioner is a stranger and had no relationship of any sort with their family.

¶51

9 . The statement of Pallavi recorded under Section 16 1 Cr.P.C., is that the petitioner herein is the relative of her mother-in-lau,. When the petitioner is a relative of the motherin-law of the said Pallavi, the petitioner is also related to the defacto complainant, who is the father of the Pallavi. Hence, it is clear that the statement of the de-facto complainant that the petitioner is not related to them is incorrect.

¶52

There are disputes between the family of the de-facto complainant and the family of the petitioner. However, there is no reason for the de-facto complainant to specifically mention falsely in the complaint that the petitioner is not the relative of the de-facto complainant. It is strange that the grievance of the de-facto complainant is that the petitioner has mentioned Pallavi as his daughter even though he is not her relative. The same person, on the contrary, in the complaint states on oath that the petitioner is no way related to him, which is factually incorrect, as the statement of LW.2 is that the petitioner is qelated to her mother-in-1aw. Therefore, the petitioner herein

¶53

¶54

also giving the false information to the Court in the complaint filed under Section 200 Cr.P.C., that he is not at all related to him and he is a stranger. It at all the petitioner has committed any offence by giving false information, the de-facto complainant is also liable in similar vuay. Henr:e, the complaint of the de-facto complainant has to be understood and appreciated by keeping that as a backdrop

¶55

I 1. It is the allegation of the de-facto complainant that by mentioning in the aflidavit that Pa-l1avi is his daughter, the petitioner has committed offence punishable r.rnder Sections 417, 42O and 425 IPC.

¶56

In order to prove the offence punishable under Section 417 IPC, the de-facto complainant is expected to prove that the petitioner has committed the offence of cl-reating as defined under Section 4i5 IPC, which runs as under:

¶57

"415. Cheating, - Whoever, by deceiving any person, fraudulently or dishonestly induces the person so deceived to deliver any property to any person, or to consent that arly person shall retain any property, or irtentionally induces the person so deceived to do or omit to do anl.thing which he would not do or omit if he were not so deceived, and which act or omission causes or is likely to cause damage or harm to tJ:at person in body, mind, reputation or properlJ,, is said to "cheat"."

On perusal of the above provision, it is clear that the defacto complainant IS expected to a-llege and prove that the petitioner has dishonestly induced a person to deliver the property to any person or to retain that property or sha-1l induce a person to do or omit to do anything otherwise, he would not have done.

¶62

The petitioner has filed an application under Rule 188(2) of the Rules in Crl.M.P.No.2038 oi 2018 and obtained certified copies. If at all the petitioner has mentioned wrongly the relationship with Pallavi in order to obtain the certificate copies, then if at all there is any grievance, it shall be to the Court but not to the de-facto complainant. The said affidavit was liied in the Court by the petitioner. The de-facto complainant is no way concerned with the said petition. It is between the petitioner and the Court and the Court on being convinced with the reason given by the petitioner, certified copies were given. Therefore, if at all any false information is furnished in the afhdavit, the aggrieved party is the Court and not the de-facto complainant or his daughter and it is for the Court to initiate aly proceedings against the petitioner

¶63

¶64

In the case on hand, by way of liling faise affidavit in respect of relationship with the said Paliavi, il at all the petitioner has committed any offence that offence is committed against the Court and thereby cognizance cannot be taken against the petitioner for the offence committed before the Court except on a complaint given by either any of the officer of the Court. In the case on hand, none of the officers of the Court has given any complaint against the petitioner for giving a false a,ffidavit in respect of the relationship of the petitioner with Pallavi.

¶65

The petitioner is also charged for the oflence under Section 420 IPC. Section 42O IPC reads as under:

¶66

"42O. Cheatlag and dishonestly inducing delivery of property, - Whoever cheats and thereby dishonestly induces the person deceived to deliver any property to arry person, or to make, alter or destroy the whole or any part of a valuable security, or anything which is signed or sealed, ar-rd rvhich is capable of being converted into a valuable security, shall be punished with imprisonment of either descriptron for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liab1e to frne."

¶67

Section 420 IPC is an aggravated form of Section 417 IPC If at all any person commits cheating as defined under Section 415 IPC and thereby induces a person so deceive to deliver aly property, the offence of cheating under Sectior:l 420 IPC applies

¶68

¶69

¶70

In the case on hand, as already observed, if the contents of the complaint are accepted to be true, even then there are no ingredients to hold that the petitioner has committed offence of cheating, which is defined under Section 4 15 IPC punishable under Section 417 IPC. When there is no cheating, the aggravated form of cheating under Section 42O IPC a-lso does not apply. Therefore, both Sections 420 and 417 IPC are not at all applicabie to the facts of the case.

¶71

The petitioner is also charged for the offence under Section 425 IPC, which reads as under:

¶72

"425. Mischief.-Whoever with rntent to cause, or knowing that he is likely to cause, wrongful loss or damage to the^public or to a.rly person, causes the destruction of any property, or any such change in any property or in tJle situation thereof as destroys or diminishes its value or uLility, or affects it injuriously, commits "mischief',

¶73

Explanation l.-lt is not essential to the offence of mischief that the offender should intend to cause loss or darnage to the owner of the property injured or destroyed. [t is sulficient if he intends to cause, or knows that he is likely to cause, wrongful loss or damage to any person by injuring ary property, whether it belongs to that person or not.

¶74

Explanation 2.-Mischief may be committed by an act allecting property belongrng to the person who commits the act, or to that person and others^jointly."

¶75

The definition of "Mischief" under Section 425 IPC would

¶76

show that the petitioner must have an intention to cause

¶77

wrongful loss or damage to the public and cause destruction of

¶78

¶79

¶80

property. In the case on hand, there are no allegations that the petitioner was having intention to cause wrongful loss to any person ald thereby destroyed the property. Hence, the facts of the case do not attract the ingredients of Section 125 lPC.

¶81

In fact, Section 425 IPC is not a penal pror.ision, it only defines the definition of Mischief. If at all the contents of complaint show any element of mischief, as defined under Section 425 IPC, the cognizance should have taken under Section 426 lPC, which is a penal provision. Tl-ris clearly shows that the trial Court has mechanically taken cognizance of the offences against the petitioner.

¶82

2l . Rule 1BB(2) of the Rules permits any third party to obtain certified copies by mentioning supported reason. It is the contention of the de-facto complainant that the petitioner in the application filed under Rule 1BB(2) of the Rules has incorrectly mentioned his relationship with Pallavi as father. If at all the relationship of the petitioner with Pa-llavi is the basis for the Court to take a decision for permitting the petitioner to take certified copies, then the conduct of the petitioner can be questioned. The Court requires not the relationship of the

t I I

I t

petitioner with any of the parties connected to the litigation, but the reasons for obtaining the certilied copy.

¶90

In fact, an application under Rule 188(2) of the Rules will be filed only by the persons, who are not the parties to the litigation. A11 the parties are connected to the litigation, can obtain certified copies directly by filing application for the certified copies. By falsely mentioning the relationship of the petitioner with Pallavi as daughter, the petitioner has neither gained anything nor the de-iacto complainant or Pallavi have lost anything in any aspect.

¶91

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is related to the family of the de-facto complainant through Pallavi's husband. It is submitted further that while mentioning the relationship with Pallavi as grand daughter, due to typographical mistake it is mentioned as daughter. Hence, it can be considered that there is no mens rea on the part of the petitioner to mention the relationship wrongly. The petitioner would have got the certified copies even if he does not mention the Pallavi as his daughter. Even otherwise, whether Pa-1lavi is a daughter or grand daughter,

¶92

¶93

mentioning of the relationship in the affidavit, u,ill not in any way affect any rights of either Pa-l1avi or- the de facto complainant. It is not the case of the petitioner that they lost the property, they lost their reputation and that the petitioner b5r rvrongl1, mentioning the relationship has t.aken an'ay the documents belonging to the de-facto complainalt. Simply mentioning the relationship with Pallavi does not constitute any offence

¶94

Therefore, considering the circumstalces from any algle, the petitioner has made out a case that continuation of the proceedings against him certainly amounts to abuse of process of iaw and therefore, the petition is liable to be allowed.

¶95

In the result, the criminal petition is allou,ed and the proceedings in C.C.No.2O10 of 2019 against the petitioner on the file of the VI Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Warangal, are hereby quashed.

¶96

Miscellaneous etitions, if an shal1 stand c1o

¶97

SD/-K.ONESIM OEPUTY^REGISTRAR

'i I j ,

To,

//TRUE^COPY//

rl SECTIONbFFICER

The Vl Additional Judicial^{FirstClass Magistrate, Warangal} The Station House Officer, Subedari^{Police Station, Warangal District'}

¶104

J Two CCs to the Public Prosecutor,^{HighCourt for the State of} Telangana, at Hyderabad [OUT]

¶105

1. One CC to M/s CMR^{Velu, Advocate} IOPUC] E One CC to^{A. PrabhakarRao, Advocate} [OPUC] 6/ Two CD CoPies

HIGH COURT

DATED:21 10712022

t'
NtL
lt-I
i
[1

ORDER

CRLP.No.4683 of 2020

ALLOWING THE CRIMINAL PETITION

¶113

¶114

Vodanala Narsimha Babu v. State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vodanala Narsimha Babu v. State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mohd. Saleem Vs The State of Telangana

Mohammad Khaja Vs The State of Telangana

Mohd. Masood Ahmed Vs The State of Telangana

Sri Putta Govind Reddy Vs The State of Telangana

Raghunath Soma Vs The State of Telangana

Puvvala Anil Kumar and Another Vs the State of Telangana.,Rep.,Pp and Another