IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVj^m^^l^^O^M FRIDAY, THE THIRD DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE r-’-j f H .^■<r A sy a. PRESENT HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL PETITION No.8673 of 2022 Between: 1. Vedulapalli Satyananda Kumar. S/o. Sri VSR Mohana Rao, Hindu, Age 67 Years, Occ. Business, R/o. House No. 10-454, Adivipalem, Dariyaia Tippa, Yanam - 533 464, Puducherry U.T. 2. Vedulapalli Surya Sri, W/o. Sri Satyananda Kumar, Hindu, Age 57 Years, Occ: House Wife, R/o. House No. 10-454, Adivipalem, Dariyaia Tippa, Yanam - 533 464, Puducherry U.T. ...Petitioners/Accused Nos.2 & 3 AND 1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P. at Amaravathi through its SHO, II Town L and O PS, Kakinada, East Godavari District. 2. Velagandula Anandam, S/o. Late Sri Sankarayya, R/o. Door No. 1-1- 1652/B, Gandhi Nagar, Hyderabad - 500 080. ...Respondents/De-facto Complainant 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 call for the records relating to CC No. 851 of 2022 on the file of the court of the II Additional Judicial First Magistrate, Kakinada and quash the Class same. i.A. NQ: 1 OF 2022 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 including appearance of the Petitioners/A-2 and A-3 in CC No. 851 of 2022 on the file of the Court of the II Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate Kakinada, pending disposal of the present criminal petition. This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri N Siva Reddy, Advocate for the Petitioners and behalf of the Respondent No.1 and of Sri Advocate for the Respondent No.2. The Court made the following: the Public Prosecutor on J Azad Chandra Sekhar, APHC010007332020 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3396] FRIDAY, THE THIRD DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAII PRATAPA CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 8673/2022 Between: 1. Veduiapalli Satyananda Kumar, S/o.V.S.R.MohanaRao, Hindu, Aged 67 years. Business. R/o.House No.10-454, Adivipalem, Dariyala Tippa, Yanam, Puducherry U.T. 2. Veduiapalli Surya Sri, W/o.Satyananda Kumar, Hindu, Aged 57 years Housewife, R/o.House No.10-454, Adivipalem, Dariyala Tippa, Yanam, Puducherry. U.T. ... PETITIONERS/ACCUSED Nos.2 & 3 AND 1. State of A.P., Rep. by its Public Prosecutor High Court of A.P., Amaravati through its SHO, II Town L&O P.S., Kakinada, E.G.District. 2. Velagandula Anandam, S/o.Late Sri Sankarayya, R/o.D.No.1-1-1652/B, Gandhi Nagar, Hyderabad. ... RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner/accused N.SIVA REDDY Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S): 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR 2. J. AZAD CHANDRA SEKHAR 2 The Court made the following: ORDER: The instant petition under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 has been filed by the Petitioners/Accused Nos.2 and 3, seeking quashment of proceedings against them in C.C.No.851 of 2022 on the file of the Court of II Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kakinada for the offences under Sections 417, 468, 471 and 506 rOad with 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860^. 2. Heard Sri N.Siva Reddy, learned counsel for the Petitioners, Ms.K.Priyanka Lakshmi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for Respondent No.1/State and Sri J.Azad Chandra Sekhar, learned counsel for Respondent No.2. 3. Learned counsel for the Petitioners would submit that Petitioners herein are arrayed as A.2 and A.3 in the above case. A.1 is their married daughter. Respondent No.2/de facto Complainant is the father of the divorced husband of A.1. Son of Respondent No.2 was shown as a witness (L.W.5-Velagandula Vivek). Learned counsel would further submit that, A.1 actually born in Kakinada and studied there up-to Intermediate and completed her B.Tech Course in Pondicherry Union Territory. Learned counsel would submit that the allegation against the Petitioners is that they created and fabricated a fake date of birth certificate to show that A.1 was born in Yanam (UT), Pondicherry on 11.09.1992 and that A.1 had obtained Indian Passport from Regional 1 for short‘Cr.P.C’ 2 for short IPC’ w 3 Passport Office, Visakhapatnam on; 11.06.2004 by using the said fake certificate to go to United States of America (USA). A.1 got USA citizenship on 08.10.2021. (ii) Learned counsel would submit that the marriage of A.1 with the son of Respondent No.2/c/e facto Complainant was performed on 12.02.2011 at USA and during wedlock, they blessed with two sons. It is a second marriage to both of them. Due to some disputes, the couple were separated and obtained divorce in USA on 18.10.2022. (iii) Learned counsel would submit that in fact, A.1 was born in Peoples’ Hospital, Gandhinagar, Kakinada on 11.09.1982. Petitioner No.1/A.2 did rice mill business at Yanam, Pondicherry and he has obtained a date of birth certificate of A.1 from Yanam Municipality to the effect that as if A.1 was born at Yanam on 11.09.1982. But, Accused never used the date of birth certificate which was obtained from Yanam Municipality. Learned counsel would further submit that, after disputes arose between the couple, i.e., A.1 and L.W.5, at the instance of L.W.5, Respondent No.2 lodged this complaint alleging that the date of birth certificate issued by Yanam Municipality is a created document. Learned counsel would submit that A.1 has filed a writ petition before High Court of Madras on point of jurisdiction vide WP No.22795 of 2022 questioning the action of the Respondent authorities therein, in not cancelling her date of birth certificate issued by Yanam Municipality, though she gave representation to Yanam Municipality on 11.12.2020 for 4 cancellation. A coordinate Bench of High Court of Madras vide Order dated 08.08.2023 cancelled the date of birth certificate. Learned counsel would further submit that the allegations made against the Petitioners would not fall under the purview of offence of forgery since there is no such allegation in the Charge sheet that the Petitioners have forged the signature of Yanam Municipal Authorities and created the date of birth certificate and that absolutely there are no ingredients to attract the offence of cheating. In the absence of any allegations regarding the criminal intimidation, charge under Section 506 IPC is not applicable. Learned counsel would further submit that Section 12(1)(b) of the (iv) (V) Passport Act, 1967 is not applicable to the present set of facts of the case. The reason being A.1 has not obtained her Passport by giving false information and she has taken passport by producing the date of birth certificate which was issued by Kakinada Municipal Authorities. It is a motivated litigation with a view to trouble the wife after obtaining divorce and that the present false case has been filed to wreck vengeance against the wife with a malafide intention. Learned counsel finally submits that it is for the Passport Authorities to make a complaint in case of any violations of the rules. Therefore, prays for quashment of the case against the Petitioners. Per contra, learned counsel for Respondent No.2 would submit that the 4. Petitioners/A.2 and A.3 conspired together and created the said date of birth certificate of A.1 as if A.1 was born in Yanam, Pondicherry. Further, A.1 has used the said date of birth certificate as per her convenience. Learned counsel 5 would submit that a case has been lodged in Crime No.181 of 2020 of II Town L&O Police Station, Kakinada against A. 1 and A.2 herein for cheating the son of Respondent No.2 by purchasing a flat in the name of A.1. Learned counsel would further submit that the date of birth of A.1 in both the certificates is one and the same. Further, the Petitioners obtained the date of birth certificate of Yanam Municipality on 25.11.2003 and after lapse of more than two decades. A.2 filed WP No.22795 of 2022 questioning the inaction on the part of Municipal Authorities of Yanam in not cancelling the date of birth certificate. The involvement of the Petitioners is well spoken by the witnesses during the course of investigation. Learned counsel would submit that the role of the Petitioners can be ascertained only after full-fledged trial. Hence, it is not a fit case for quashment of the case against the Petitioners. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor supported the version of the 5. learned counsel for Respondent No.2. A bare perusal of Section 482 makes it clear that the Code envisages 6. that inherent powers of the High Court are not limited or affected so as to make orders as may be necessary; (i) to give effect to any order under the Code or, (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or, otherwise (iii) to secure ends of justice. A court while sitting in Section 482 jurisdiction is not i''; functioning as a court of appeal or a court of revision. It must exercise its powers to do real and substantial justice, depending on the facts and circumstances of the case. These powers must be invoked for compelling 1 6 reasons of abuse of process of law or glaring injustice, which are against sound principles of criminal jurisprudence. Specific circumstances warranting the invocation of the provision must be present. To identify these specific circumstances, it is essential to discuss 7. some precedents. The decision rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in State of Haryana and others v. Bhajanlal and others^ is considered as the guiding torch in the application of Section 4,82. At paras 102 and 103, the circumstances are spelt out as follows; ‘102. in the backdrop of the interpretation of the various reievant provisions of the Code under Chapter XiV and of the principies of iaw enunciated by this Court in a series of decisions reiating to the exercise of the extraordinary power under Articie 226 or the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code which we have extracted and reproduced above, we give the foiiowing categories of cases by way of iiiustration wherein such power couid be exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it may not be possibie to iay down any precise, cieariy defined and sufficientiy channeiised and infiexibie guideiines or rigid formuiae and to give an exhaustive iist of myriad kinds of cases wherein such power shouid be exercised. (1) Where the aiiegations made in ‘the first information report or the compiaint, even if they are taken at their face vaiue and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused. (2) Where the aiiegations in the first information report and other materiais, if any, accompanying the FiR do not disciose a cognizabie offence, justifying an investigation by poiice officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code. (3) Where the uncontroverted aiiegations made in the FiR or compiaint and the evidence coiiected in support of the same do not disciose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused. (4) Where, the allegations in the FiR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code. 3 AIR 1992 SC 604 " t - .I' •' ■7 (5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable oh the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. (6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding Is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party. (7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengephce on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private aridpersonal grudge. 103. We also give a note of Caution to the effect that the power of quashing a criminal proceeding should be exercised very sparingly and with circumspection and that too in(the rarest of rare cases; that the court wiii not be justified in' embarking upon an enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or othenA/ise of the allegations made in the FIR or the complaint and that the extraordirmfy or inherent powers do not confer an arbitrary jurisdiction on the court td act according to its whim or caprice.” (emphasis supplied) A fair look at the material oh record would show that the marriage of 8. Accused N0.I with the son of Respondent No.2 i.e., L.W.5 had taken place on 12.02.2011. The couple obtained divorce in USA on 18.10.2022. Accused N0.I submitted her representation for cancellation of the date of birth certificate obtained at Yanam on 1T12.2020 i.e., much prior to the divorce between the parties. As the Authorities failed to do so, Accused N0.I filed a Writ Petition, which was allowed and consequently, Yanam Municipal Authorities cancelled the date of birth certificate of Accused N0.I on 08.08.2023. At this stage, for ready reference. Sections 415 punishable under Section 417, Sections 468, 471 and 503 punishable under Section 506 IPC 9. are extracted hereunder; / 8 Whoever, by deceiving any person, fraudulently or dishonestly induces the person so deceived to deliver any property to any person, or to consent that any person shall retain any property, or intentionally induces the person so deceived to do or omit to do anything which he would not do or omit if he were not so deceived, and which act or omission causes or isdikely to cause damage or harm to that person in body, mind, reputation or property, is said to “cheat". 468. Forgery for purpose of cheating.—Whoever commits forgery, intending that the document or electronic record forged shall be used for the purpose of cheating, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to shall also be liable to fine. 415. Cheating. seven years, and 471. Using as genuine a forged document or electronic record. Whoever fraudulently or dishonestly uses as genuine any document or electronic record] which he knows or has reason to believe to be a forged document or electronic record, shall be punished in the same manner as if he had forged such document or electronic record. 503. Criminal Intimidation. . _ Whoever threatens another with any injury to his person, reputation or 'property, or to the person or reputation of any one in whom that person is interested, with intent to cause alarm to that person, or to cause'that person to do any act which he is not legally bound to do, or to omit to do any act which that person is legally entitled to do, as the means of avoiding the execution of such threat, commits criminal intimidation." 10. In the instant case, it is alleged that, Accused No.1 by obtaining false birth certificate from Kakinada Municipal Office through Petitioner/Accused No.2 and by using the said document passport by cheating the Passport Authorities and also Respondent No.2 to foist false criminal her father i.e. she obtained threatened cases against him. As rightly put by the learned counsel for the Petitioners, no allegations are made against the Petitioners that they have forged the signature of the authorities and the forged date of birth certificate. created The contents of the complaint in the present case does not disclose anything to attract the ingredients of cheating or forgery. The date of birth certificate of Accused No.1 was also considered *V-—» 9 by a Coordinate Bench of High Court of Madras and the Authorities concerned. That apart, Accused No.1 has not obtained passport by using the alleged date of birth certificate. As such, the ingredients of the offence under Section 12(1)(b) of the Passport Act also do not attract to the facts of the present case. So far as the offence under Section 506 IPC is concerned, as held by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Manik Taneja v. State of Karnataka'^, a bare 11. reading of the definition of “criminal intimidation”, punishable under Section 506 IPC would indicate that there must be an act of threatening to another person, of causing an injury to the person, reputation, or property of the person threatened, or to the person in whom the threatened person is interested and the threat must be with the intent to cause alarm to the person threatened or it must be to do any act which he is not legally bound to do or omit to do an act which he is legally entitled to do. In the present case, except the bald and omnibus allegations, there is no iota of material to connect the Petitioners/Accused Nos.2 and 3 with the offence under Section 506 IPC. 12. In the light of the above discussion and the judgments referred to supra, this Court is of the considered view that continuation of criminal proceedings against the Petitioners/Accused Nos.2 and 3 amounts to abuse of process of Court and therefore, it is a fit case to exercise the inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C to quash the proceedings. “'(2015)7 see 423 f 10 is allowed and the proceedings in C.C.No.851 of 2022 on the file of Kakinada for the 506 read with 34 IPC, are hereby Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is 13. Petitioners/Accused Nos.2 and 3 in against the Court of II Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate Sections417, 468, 471 and offences under quashed. shall stand AS a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any s'd/-M. SURYANADHA REDDY deputy registrar closed. //TRUE COPY// ' SECTION OFFICER To Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kakinada, East L and O Police Station, Kakinada Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh, 1 The II Additional Godavari District. 2 The Station House Officer, II Town East Godavari District. 3. Two CCS to the Public Amaravathi[OUT] 4. OneCCto 5. One CC to Sri J Azad 6. Three CD Copies Sri N Siva Reddy, Advocate [OPUC] Chandra Sekhar, Advocate [OPUC] TK. HIGH COURT DATED;03/01/2025 ORDER CRLP.No.8673 of 2022 ALLOWING THE CRIMINAL PETITION