Devarapu Satya Venkata Sudhakar v. The State Of Andhra Pradesh

High Court Buildings, Amaravathi. ...RESPONDENT

#2. G.G.S.S Chakravarthy, S/o. Late Krishna Murfhy, aged about. 48 years. Occ. Police Constable, C/o. Bhimavaram Bhimavaram, West Godavari District, AP. I Town Police Station, Petition ...RESPONDENT N0.2/DEFACT0 COMPLAINANT Section 482 Cr.P.C praying circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds the High Court of Criminal Petition, rnay be pleased to Quash the Charge Sheet including C.C.No.550 of 2021 which proceedings against the Petitioner/Accused vide IS pending on the Magistrate of .Bhimavaram, West Godavari of Learned II Additional Judicial First Class District. iT I.A. NO: 1 OF 2077 Petition Section 482 Cr.P.C circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to stay all further proceedings against the Petitioner/Accused in C.C.No.550 of 2021 which is pending on the file of Learned II Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate of Bhimavaram Godavari District. praying , West This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri PRUDVI RAJU MUDUNURI ,Advocate for the Petitioner and the Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No.1. The Court made the following Order: APHC010146532022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH ATAMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3396] WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 2930/2022 Between:

1.DEVARAPU SATYA VENKATA SUDHAKAR, S/0. AMMANNA, AGED R/0. D.NO. 13-2024, NALLAMVARI STREET, ABOUT 46 YEARS GUNUPUDI, BHIMAVARAM, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT, A.P. ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND 1 .THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT BUILDINGS, AMARAVATHI.

2.G G S S CHAKRAVARTHY, S/0. LATE KRISHNA MURTHY, AGED ABOUT. 48 YEARS. OCC . POLICE CONSTABLE, C/0. BHIMAVARAM I TOWN POLICE STATION, BHIMAVARAM, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT, AP. ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner/accused:

1.PRUDVI RAJU MUDUNURI Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S):

#1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP) The Court made the following: ORDER: The instant petition under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973^ has been filed by the Petitioner/Accused, seeking quashment of proceedings against him in C.C.No.550 of 2021 on the file of the Court of II 1 for short ‘Cr.P.C’ 2 Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Bhimavaram for the offences under Sections 420, 465, 468, 471 and 473 of the Indian Penal Code^.

#2. Heard Sri M.Prudvi Raju, learned counsel for the Petitioner and Ms.K.Priyanka Lakshmi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for Respondent No.1/State. Inspite of service of notice, none appeared for Respondent No.2.

#3. Learned counsel for the Petitioner would submit that absolutely there are no allegations made against the Petitioner either to attract the offence of cheating or the offence of forgery or using the forged document as genuine. Learned counsel would further submit that the Petitioner is the sole Accused, who has nothing to do with the alleged offences. In the absence of any specific allegations evidence collected during course investigation, continuation of criminal proceedings against the Petitioner is mere abuse of process of law. To buttress his contentions, learned counsel has placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Nagawwa vs. Veeranna Shivalingapa Konjalgi and others^

#4. Per contra, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor would submit that there are specific allegations made against the Petitioner to prima facie attract the offences under Sections 420, 465, 468, 471 and 473 IPC. There is a verifiable material on record which requires investigation at full length of trial. This is not a fit case for quashment. Hence, prayed for dismissal of the petition. 2 for short ‘IPC’ ^ (1976) 3 see 736

#5. As can be seen from the record, the case of Respondent No.2, in brief / is as follows; Respondent No.2 has been working as a Police Constable in 1 Town Police Station, Bhimavaram and was attending works of writing records, helping the Writer and also to enter the Tappals received from other offices in the concerned records of the Police Station. That being so, on 18.11.2018 at about 1.00 p.m., on perusal of the tappal in C.No.778/Genl./SDPO -N/2018 and the endorsement therein, which has come from the office of Sub- Divisional Police Officer, Narsapuram, he found that, there were no criminal pending against Devarapu Satya Venkata Sudhakar, S/o.Ammanna, Gunupudi, Bhimavaram in I Town Police Station, Bhimavaram and the certificate to that effect was issued on 22.08.2018 by the D.S.P., Narsapuram and it contains the round seal of the office of Bhimavaram Town Circle. Though there is no Circle Office in Bhimavaram Town, the Petitioner forged the signature of D.S.P, affixed the duplicate stamps and fabricated the certificate and used the same as a genuine document to secure a job in Holiburten, Mumbai.

#6. A bare perusal of Section 482 makes it clear that the Code envisages 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 functioning as a court of appeal or a court of revision. It must exercise its 4 powers to do real and substantial justice, depending on the facts and circumstances of the case. These powers must be invoked for compelling reasons of abuse of process of law or glaring injustice, which are against sound principles of criminal jurisprudence.

#7. At this stage it is relevant to extract Sections 420, 465, 468, 471 and 473 IPC, which read as follows: “420. Cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property.—Whoever cheats and thereby dishonestly induces the person deceived to deliver any property to any person, or to make, alter or destroy the whole or any part of a valuable security, or anything which is signed or sealed, and which is capable of being converted into a valuable security, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.

#465. Punishment for forgery.—Whoever commits forgery shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both. of cheating.—Whoever for purpose 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 seven years, and shall also be liable to fine. Forgery

#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].

#473. Making or possessing counterfeit seal, etc., with intent to commit forgery punishable otherwise.— Whoever makes or counterfeits any seal, plate or other instrument for making an impression, intending that the same shall be used for the purpose of committing any forgery which would be punishable under any section of this Chapter other than section 467, or, with such intent, has in his possession any such seal, plate or other instrument, knowing the same to be counterfeit, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine. ” 5

#8. In the backdrop of the legal positions referred to supra, coming to the facts of the present case, it is alleged against the Petitioner that, for securing an employment, he has created a fake verification certification to the effect that no cases are pending against him in I Town Police Station, Bhimavaram. This certificate is alleged to have been created for verification of antecedents as required by ONGC to Halliburton, Mumbai, The Police, after due investigation filed charge sheet and it reveals that the signature on the alleged verification certificate and the original signature of the S.D.P.O., Narsapuram are not tallied and on a verification of the record, they found that it is a fake document with forged signature of S.D.P.O. In the light of the prima facie material to attract the offences under Sections 420, 465, 468, 471 and 473 of IPC against the Petitioner, the quashment of the proceedings against him does not arise. There are no merits in the contentions raised by the Petitioner and consequently the petition deserves dismissal.

#9. In the result, the Criminal Petition is dismissed. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. Sd/- U SRIDEVI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// To, SECTION OFFICER

#1. The II Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Bhimavaramm West Godavari District.

#2. The Station House Officer, Bhimavaram I Town Police Station, West Godavari District.

#3. One CC to 4. Two CC's to the Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Sri. Prudvi Raju Mudunuri, Advocate [OPUC] Amaravati [OUT]

#5. Three CD Copies RDB VNA high court DATED;22/01/2025 -5^ ORDER CRLP.No.2930 of 2022 f 1«m'2025 I ^ . Current Secnon DISMISSING THE CRIMINAL PETITION