CIVIL APPEAL 8673 of 2022 on 11 September 1992

ORDER:

The instant petition under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure,1973hasbeenfiledbythePetitioners/AccusedNos.2 and3,seekingquashment of proceedings against them in C.C.No.851of 2022 on the file ofthe Court ofII AdditionalJudicialFirst Class Magistrate,Kakinadafor theoffences under Sections 417, 468, 471and 506 rOad[with][ 34][ of][ the]IndianPenal Code, 1860^.

2. HeardSriN.SivaReddy,learnedcounselforthePetitioners,Ms.K.Priyanka Lakshmi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for RespondentNo.1/State and Sri J.Azad Chandra Sekhar, learned counsel for RespondentNo.2.Ms.K.Priyanka Lakshmi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for RespondentNo.1/State and Sri J.Azad Chandra Sekhar, learned counsel for RespondentNo.2.

3. Learned counsel for the Petitioners would submit that Petitioners hereinare arrayed as A.2 and A.3 in the above case. A.1is 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-VelagandulaVivek).Learnedcounsel wouldfurther submitthat,A.1actuallyborninKakinada and studied there up-to Intermediate and completedher B.TechCourse in Pondicherry Union Territory. Learned counsel[would][ submit][ that][ the]allegation against the Petitionersis that they created[and][ fabricated][ a][ fake]date of birth certificate to show that A.1 was born in Yanam (UT), Pondicherryon11.09.1992 and that A.1had obtained Indian Passport fromRegionalare arrayed as A.2 and A.3 in the above case. A.1is 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-VelagandulaVivek).Learnedcounsel wouldfurther submitthat,A.1actuallyborninKakinada and studied there up-to Intermediate and completedher B.TechCourse in Pondicherry Union Territory. Learned counsel[would][ submit][ that][ the]allegation against the Petitionersis that they created[and][ fabricated][ a][ fake]date of birth certificate to show that A.1 was born in Yanam (UT), Pondicherryon11.09.1992 and that A.1had obtained Indian Passport fromRegional 1for short‘Cr.P.C’

2for short IPC’

PassportOffice,Visakhapatnamon;11.06.2004byusingthesaidfakecertificate to go to United States of America (USA).A.1 got USA citizenshipon 08.10.2021.

(ii) Learned counsel would submit that the marriage of A.1with theson of Respondent No.2/c/e facto Complainant was performed[on 12.02.2011]at USA and during wedlock, they blessed with two sons.Itisa secondmarriage to both of them. Due to some disputes, the couple were separatedand obtained divorce in USA on 18.10.2022.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.Itisa secondmarriage to both of them. Due to some disputes, the couple were separatedand obtained divorce in USA on 18.10.2022.

(iii) Learnedcounselwouldsubmitthatinfact,A.1wasborninPeoples’ 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]bornat Yanam on11.09.1982.But, Accused never used[the][ date]of birthcertificate which was obtained from YanamMunicipality.Learnedcounselwould further submit that, after disputes arose between the couple, i.e., A.1and L.W.5, at the instance of L.W.5, Respondent No.2 lodged this complaintalleging that the date of birth certificate issued by Yanam Municipalityis acreated document. Learned counsel would submit that A.1hasfiled a writpetition before High Court of Madras on point of jurisdiction[vide][ WP][ No.22795]of 2022 questioning the action of the Respondent authorities therein,in notcancelling her date of birth certificate issued by Yanam Municipality, thoughshegaverepresentationtoYanamMunicipalityon11.12.2020for cancellation. A coordinate Bench of High Court of Madras[vide][ Order][ dated]08.08.2023 cancelled the date of birth certificate.

(iv) 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 ingredientstoattract theoffence of cheating.In the absence of any allegations[regarding][ the][ criminal]intimidation, charge under Section 506 IPC is not applicable.

(V)Learned counsel would further submit that Section 12(1)(b)[of][ the]Passport Act, 1967is not applicable to the present[set][ of][ facts][ of][ the][ case.]ThereasonbeingA.1hasnotobtainedherPassportbygivingfalseinformationand she has takenpassport byproducingthedateofbirthcertificatewhichwasissuedbyKakinadaMunicipalAuthorities.Itisamotivated litigation with a view to trouble the wife after obtaining divorce andthat the present false case has been filed to wreck vengeance against the wifewith a malafide intention. Learned counsel finally[submits][ that]itisfor thePassport Authorities to make a complaint in case of any violations of the rules.Therefore, prays for quashment of the case against[the][ Petitioners.]

4. Per contra, learned counsel for Respondent No.2 would[submit][ that][ the]Petitioners/A.2 and A.3 conspired together and created[the][ said][ date][ of][ birth]certificate of A.1 asif A.1 was born in Yanam, Pondicherry.[Further,][ A.1] hasused the said date of birth certificate as per her[convenience.][ Learned][ counsel]Petitioners/A.2 and A.3 conspired together and created[the][ said][ date][ of][ birth]certificate of A.1 asif A.1 was born in Yanam, Pondicherry.[Further,][ A.1] hasused the said date of birth certificate as per her[convenience.][ Learned][ counsel]

would submit that a case has been lodged in Crime No.181[of][ 2020][ of]II TownL&O Police Station, Kakinada against A. 1 and A.2 herein for cheating the sonof 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.1in both the certificates is oneand 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.2filed WP No.22795of 2022 questioningtheinactiononthepart ofMunicipal Authorities of Yanam in not cancelling the[date][ of][ birth][ certificate.]The involvement of the Petitioners is well spoken by the witnesses during thecourse of investigation.Learned counsel would submit[that][ the]roleof thePetitioners can be ascertained only after full-fledged[trial.] Hence,it is not a fitcase for quashment of the case against the Petitioners.

5. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor supported theversionofthelearned counsel for Respondent No.2.learned counsel for Respondent No.2.

6. A bare perusal of Section 482 makesit clear that the Code envisagesthat inherent powers of the High Court are not limited[or affected][ so as]tomake orders as may be necessary;(i) to give effect to any order under theCode or,(ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or, otherwise (iii) tosecure ends of justice.A court while sitting in Section 482 jurisdiction is noti'';functioning as a court of appeal or a court of revision.It must exerciseitspowerstodorealandsubstantialjustice,dependingonthefactsandcircumstances of the case. These powers must be invoked for compellingthat inherent powers of the High Court are not limited[or affected][ so as]tomake orders as may be necessary;(i) to give effect to any order under theCode or,(ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or, otherwise (iii) tosecure ends of justice.A court while sitting in Section 482 jurisdiction is noti'';functioning as a court of appeal or a court of revision.It must exerciseitspowerstodorealandsubstantialjustice,dependingonthefactsandcircumstances of the case. These powers must be invoked for compelling reasons of abuse of process of law or glaringinjustice, which are againstsound principles of criminal jurisprudence.

7. Specific circumstances warranting the invocation of the provision mustbe present. To identify these specific circumstances,it is essential to discusssome precedents. The decision rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Stateof Haryana and othersv. Bhajanlal and others^is consideredastheguiding torchin the application of Section 4,82. At paras 102 and103, thecircumstances are spelt out as follows;be present. To identify these specific circumstances,it is essential to discusssome precedents. The decision rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Stateof Haryana and othersv. Bhajanlal and others^is consideredastheguiding torchin the application of Section 4,82. At paras 102 and103, thecircumstances are spelt out as follows;

‘102. inthebackdropoftheinterpretationofthevariousreievantprovisions of the Code under Chapter XiV and of the principies of iawenunciated by this Court in a series of decisions reiating[to][ the][ exercise][ of]the extraordinary power under Articie 226 or the inherent powers underSection 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 ofany court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it may not bepossibietoiay downanyprecise,cieariydefinedandsufficientiychanneiised and infiexibie guideiines or rigid formuiae andto give anexhaustiveiist of myriad kinds of cases wherein such power shouid beexercised.(1) Where the aiiegations made in ‘the first information report or thecompiaint, even if they are taken at their face vaiue and accepted intheir entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence[or][ make][ out][ a]case against the accused.

(2) Wheretheaiiegationsinthefirst informationreport andothermateriais, if any, accompanying the FiR do not disciose a cognizabieoffence, 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.materiais, if any, accompanying the FiR do not disciose a cognizabieoffence, 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 compiaintand the evidence coiiected in support of the same do[not][ disciose][ the]commissionof any offence and makeout acaseagainsttheaccused.and the evidence coiiected in support of the same do[not][ disciose][ the]commissionof any offence and makeout acaseagainsttheaccused.

(4) Where,the allegations in the FiR do not constitute a cognizableoffence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigationis permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate ascontemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code.offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigationis permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate ascontemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code.

(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.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) Wherethereis an express legal bar engraftedin[any]of theprovisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under[which][ a criminal]proceedingIs instituted)to the institution and continuanceof theproceedings 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.provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under[which][ a criminal]proceedingIs instituted)to the institution and continuanceof theproceedings 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 Cautiontothe 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 madeintheFIRorthecomplaint 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)

8. A fair look at the material oh record would show that the marriage ofAccused 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.AccusedN0.Isubmittedherrepresentationforcancellationofthedateofbirthcertificate obtained at Yanam on 1T12.2020i.e., much prior to the divorcebetween the parties. As the Authorities failed to do[so,][ Accused][ N0.I][ filed][ a]WritPetition,whichwasallowedandconsequently,YanamMunicipalAuthoritiescancelledthedateofbirthcertificateofAccusedN0.Ion08.08.2023.

9. At this stage,for readyreference.Sections 415punishableunderSection 417, Sections 468, 471 and 503 punishable under[ 506 IPC]are extracted hereunder;Section 417, Sections 468, 471 and 503 punishable under[ 506 IPC]are extracted hereunder;

415. Cheating.Whoever, by deceiving any person, fraudulently ordishonestly induces the person so deceived to deliver any property toany person, or to consent that any person shall retain any property, orintentionally induces the person so deceived to door omitto doanything 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 harmto that person in body, mind, reputation or property, is said to “cheat".dishonestly induces the person so deceived to deliver any property toany person, or to consent that any person shall retain any property, orintentionally induces the person so deceived to door omitto doanything 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 harmto 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 usedfor the purpose of cheating, shall be punished with imprisonment ofeither description for a term which may extend toseven years, andshall also be liable to fine.

471. Using as genuine a forged document or electronic record.Whoever fraudulently or dishonestly uses as genuine any document orelectronic record] which he knows or has reason to believe to be aforged document or electronic record, shall be punished in the samemanner as if he had forged such document or electronic record.

503.._Criminal Intimidation.Whoever threatens another with anyinjury tohis person,reputation or 'property,or tothe personorreputation of any one in whom that person is interested, with intent tocause alarm to that person, or to cause'that person to do any actwhich he is not legally bound to do, or to omit to do any act which thatperson is legally entitled to do, as the means of avoiding the executionof such threat, commits criminal intimidation."

10. In the instant case,it is alleged that, Accused No.1 by obtaining falsebirthcertificate fromKakinada Municipal Office throughherfatheri.e.Petitioner/Accused No.2 and by using the said documentsheobtainedpassportbycheatingthePassportAuthoritiesandalsothreatenedRespondent No.2 to foist false criminalcases against him.As rightly put bythe learned counsel for the Petitioners, no allegations are made against thePetitioners that they have forged the signature of the authorities andcreatedthe forged dateof birth certificate.The contents of the complaintin thepresent case does not disclose anything to attract the ingredients of cheatingor forgery. The date of birth certificate of Accused No.1 was also considered by obtaining falsebirthcertificate fromKakinada Municipal Office throughherfatheri.e.Petitioner/Accused No.2 and by using the said documentsheobtainedpassportbycheatingthePassportAuthoritiesandalsothreatenedRespondent No.2 to foist false criminalcases against him.As rightly put bythe learned counsel for the Petitioners, no allegations are made against thePetitioners that they have forged the signature of the authorities andcreatedthe forged dateof birth certificate.The contents of the complaintin thepresent case does not disclose anything to attract the ingredients of cheatingor forgery. The date of birth certificate of Accused No.1 was also considered byaCoordinateBenchofHighCourtof MadrasandtheAuthoritiesconcerned.That apart, Accused No.1 has not obtained passport by using thealleged 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]factsof thepresent case.

11. So far as the offence under Section 506 IPC is concerned, as held bythe Hon’ble Apex Courtin Manik Tanejav. State of Karnataka'^, a barereadingof the definition of “criminal intimidation”, punishable under Section506 IPC would indicate that there must be an act of threatening to anotherperson,of causinganinjury to the person,reputation,or property of thepersonthreatened,ortothepersonin whomthethreatenedpersonisinterested and the threat must be with the intent to cause alarm to the personthreatened orit must be to do any act which he is not legally bound to do oromit to do an act which he is legally entitled to do.In the present case, exceptthe 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.the Hon’ble Apex Courtin Manik Tanejav. State of Karnataka'^, a barereadingof the definition of “criminal intimidation”, punishable under Section506 IPC would indicate that there must be an act of threatening to anotherperson,of causinganinjury to the person,reputation,or property of thepersonthreatened,ortothepersonin whomthethreatenedpersonisinterested and the threat must be with the intent to cause alarm to the personthreatened orit must be to do any act which he is not legally bound to do oromit to do an act which he is legally entitled to do.In the present case, exceptthe 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. Inthelight of the above discussion andthe judgmentsreferredtosupra,thisCourtisof theconsideredviewthatcontinuationofcriminalproceedings against the Petitioners/Accused Nos.2 and[3][ amounts][ to][ abuse]of process of Court and therefore,itis afit case[to][ exercise]theinherentpowers under Section 482 Cr.P.C to quash the proceedings.

is allowed and the proceedings13.Accordingly, the CriminalPetitionisin C.C.No.851 of 2022 on the file ofPetitioners/Accused Nos.2 and 3 inagainstKakinada for thethe Court ofII[Additional][ Judicial][ First][ Class][ Magistrate]506 read with 34 IPC, are herebySections417, 468, 471 andoffences underquashed.

shall stand

AS a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if anyclosed.s'd/-M. SURYANADHA REDDY

s'd/-M. SURYANADHA REDDYdeputy registrar //TRUE COPY//

'SECTION OFFICER

ToJudicial First Class Magistrate, Kakinada, EastJudicial First Class Magistrate, Kakinada, East1The II AdditionalGodavari District.L and O Police Station, KakinadaGodavari District.L and O Police Station, Kakinada 2 The Station House Officer, II TownEast Godavari District.East Godavari District.

Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh,

3. Two CCS to the PublicAmaravathi[OUT]Amaravathi[OUT]

4. OneCCtoSri N Siva Reddy, Advocate [OPUC]Chandra Sekhar, Advocate [OPUC]Chandra Sekhar, Advocate [OPUC]5. One CC to Sri J Azad

6. Three CD Copies

TK.

HIGH COURT

DATED;03/01/2025

ORDER

CRLP.No.8673 of 2022

ALLOWING THE CRIMINAL PETITION