Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Chandra Sekhar Pawan Kumar vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh on 7 December, 2023
1
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE T. MALLIKARJUNA RAO
I.A.No.02 OF 2023
IN
CRIMINAL PETITION No.7969 OF 2023
O R D E R:
1. This Interlocutory Application has been filed by the petitioner/proposed respondent no.2 under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, 'Cr.P.C.') seeking to implead her as Respondent No.2 in connection with Crime No.215 of 2023, of Chinna Bazar Police Station, Nellore, S.P.S.R. Nellore District, for the offences punishable under Section 463, 464, 465, 467, 468, 471 read with Section 109 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, 'IPC').
2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the Principal District Judge, Nellore, forwarded the endorsement complaint through the Sub- Divisional Police Officer, Nellore Town, on 03.10.2023 in which it occurred before 29.09.2023 and was registered on 03.10.2023 in which the complainant/Principal District Judge complained that one Vaddi Priyanka, W/o. Pavan Kumar, the petitioner/proposed respondent no.2 herein, submitted her representation that A.1 and A.2 concerned in Crime No.18 of 2019 of Women Police Station, Nellore, vide PRC No.130 of 2019 on the file of Spl. Mobile Court, Nellore produced fake sureties and also submitted information which she collected through the RTI Act from the concerned that the accused produced solvencies by creating fabricated solvency 2 certificates and filed C.F. against 11 charged as responsible for fake sureties and it was numbered as C.F.No.46 of 2021 i.e. A.1, A.2, A.5 to A.11 mentioned in the C.F.No.46 of 2022 on the file of Mobile Magistrate, Nellore. According to the queries of Inspector of Police Vedayapalem P.S. Nellore, prima facie appears that the sureties furnished are fake for necessary registration. Based on the same, Crime No.215 of 2023 has been registered against the accused 1 and 2 and others for the offences punishable under Section 463, 464, 465, 467, 468, 471 read with Section 109 of IPC.
3. The brief averments of the Petition, as well as an additional affidavit, are that the Petitioner is the victim of a matrimonial cruelty/defacto complainant in Crime No.18 of 2019 of the Disha Women Police Station, Nellore, seeking to implead her as 2nd Respondent to assist the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor in the pre-arrest bail in respect of the Crime No.215 of 2023. A.1 is the husband of the Petitioner herein and son of A.2. A.1 obtained anticipatory bail in Crl. M.P.No.49 of 2019 on the file of VIII Additional District and Sessions Judge, Nellore, with specific terms and conditions in Crl. M.P.No.449 of 2019 and released on bail by producing two sureties with their solvency certificates as per the orders of the Court. A.2 was also enlarged on regular bail in Crl. M.P.No.388 of 2019 on the file of VIII Additional District and Sessions Judge, Nellore.
(i) It is further stated that though the accused in Crime No.18 of 2019 vide PRC.No.130 of 2019 on the file of Special Mobile Magistrate 3 Court, Nellore, received summons from the Court. Still, they are evading to appear before the Court since 2019, as such, the Petitioner herein suspected and applied the Certified Copies of the entire record in PRC.
No.130 of 2019, including Memos and Solvency Certificates produced by the accused sent a notice by enclosing the said Solvency Certificates of sureties to the concerned issuing authorities and requested to furnish information under the Right to Information Act. After receiving the notice and documents, the concerned Panchayat Secretaries of Vavilla Village and Mypadu Village gave their report stating that the Solvency Certificates produced sureties as fabricated and forged documents by misrepresenting the facts to the Court and used the same as genuine documents and released on bail. After that, the Petitioner herein sent the representation to the trial Court and the Police Officers about the fraud played by the accused. But, action has yet to be taken by them. Later, she approached the Superintendent of Police, Nellore, on 13.08.2021 and 04.10.2021 and presented two representations along with the documents. She filed a Crl.M.P.Nos.1064 and 1065 of 2021 before the VIII Additional District and Sessions Judge, Nellore, to cancel Bail for A.1 and A.2, which is pending. Due to the mischievous acts of the accused, with the help of local persons from Nellore City, fabricated false solvency certificates and dragging the criminal case vide PRC.No.130 of 2019 on the file of Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Nellore since 2019.
4
(ii) It is further stated that unless the Petitioner impleaded as 2nd Respondent in the main criminal Petition and heard along with the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor before passing the orders in the anticipatory bail application, great hardship would be caused to her as cases filed by her are stalled without any progress to effect criminal trials due to dilatory tactics playing by the accused. It is further stated that at the time of filing the implead Petition, the documents were not filed by her, which are essential to conclude.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner/proposed respondent no.2 contends that A.1 and A.2 were released on bail regarding Crime No.18 of 2019 by producing fabricated and forged solvency certificates before the trial Court. The Petitioner, the defacto complainant, sought to implead her as 2nd Respondent to assist the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor in the pre-arrest bail in the Crime No.215 of 2023.
5. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents/A.1 and A.2 opposed allowing the implead Petition and further contended that the Petitioner is not a necessary party to the proceedings.
6. I have heard learned counsel for the Petitioner and counsel for the Respondents/A.1 and A.2.
7. It is born out from the record that the Petitioners/A.1 and A.2 in Crl.P.No.7969 of 2023 filed anticipatory bail application in Cr.No.215 of 2023, dated 03.10.2023 of Bazar Police Station, SPSR Nellore District. The 5 Petitioner in I.A.No.2 of 2023 seeks to implead her as 2nd Respondent in Crl.P.No.7969 of 2023. The Petitioner in I.A.No.2 of 2023 is the wife of the 1st Petitioner in Crl.P.No.7969 of 2023, and she is the Defacto Complainant in Cr.No.18 of 2019 of Women P.S, Nellore, which was registered on 12.03.2019 under sections 307, 498A of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act against A.1 to A.4, who is her husband, father, and sister in- laws.
8. Initially, the Petitioners in Crl.P.No.7969 of 2023 were granted anticipatory bail by the learned VIII Additional Sessions Judge-cum- Special Judge for Trial of offences against Women, Nellore, on 18.04.2019 in Crl.M.P.No.449 of 2019. Subsequently, the Petitioner herein made an application under provisions of the Right to Information Act, 2005, to the Panchayat Secretary, Vavilla Gramapanchayat, Vidavalur Mandal, SPSR Nellore District, requesting him to provide the information as to whether the solvency certificates, which were purportedly issued by the Panchayat Secretary, Vavilla village, produced by the Petitioner/A.1 before the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Special Mobile Court, Nellore in P.R.C.No.130 of 2019, are genuine one or not. On the above-said application, the Panchayat Secretary, Vavilla village, gave the information to the Defacto Complainant stating that he has not issued any solvency certificates and they are fabricated by the Petitioner/Accused No.1 with the help of somebody. Having learned about the same, the Defacto Complainant has applied viz., 6 Crl.M.P.No.1065 of 2021 before the VIII Additional Sessions Judge-Cum- Special Judge for Trial of offences against Women, Nellore, under section 439(2) of Cr.P.C seeking to cancel the anticipatory bail granted to the Petitioner. After receiving the notice, the Petitioner contested the matter, and the learned VIII Additional Sessions Judge, Nellore, after an elaborate discussion, cancelled the anticipatory bail granted to the Petitioner on the ground that the Petitioner produced the fabricated solvency certificates before the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Special Mobile court, Nellore, by an order dated 10.03.2023. After that, the Petitioner was arrested on 21.06.2023 and remanded to judicial custody.
9. It is also born out from the record that upon the complaint made by the Petitioner herein to the learned Principal District Judge, Nellore, a criminal complaint was endorsed to the S.H.O, Chinna Bazar Police Station, Nellore, against the Petitioners/A.1 and A.2 herein and 9 others who are cited as accused in a private complaint filed by her vide C.F.No.46/2021 concerned to Cr.No.18 of 2019 of the Disha Women P.S, Nellore, SPSR Nellore District, vide P.R.C.No.130/2019 on the file of Special Mobile Magistrate Court, Nellore on the allegations of submitting fake Solvency Certificates and producing false sureties for their release on bail in Cr.No.18 of 2019 of Chinna Bazar Police Station, Nellore vide P.R.C.No.130 of 2019 on the file of Special Mobile Magistrate Court, Nellore, the same is registered as Cr.No.215 of 2023 by the S.H.O, Chinna Bazar P.S., Nellore, 7 for the offences under sections 463, 464, 465, 467, 468, 471 r/w 109 of IPC. Petitioners/A.1 and A.2 in Crl.P.No.7969 of 2023 approached this Court vide Crl.P.No.783 of 2022 to quash the P.R.C.No.130 of 2019 on the file of Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Special Mobile Court, Nellore.
10. It is the contention of the Petitioners/A.1 and A.2 in Crl.P.No.7969 of 2023 that the Petitioner in I.A.No.2 of 2023 cannot be impleaded as Respondent to the Crl.P.No.7969 of 2023 as she is not a Defacto Complainant and the Principal District Judge, Nellore, complained but not the Petitioner herein.
11. Learned counsel for the Petitioner in I.A.No.2 of 2023 placed reliance on a decision in Delta Car Private Limited vs. Sanjiv Shah and others1, wherein the composite High Court of Andhra Pradesh held that:
"29. xxx Having regard above, the defacto-complainant being the victim of the crime within the meaning of Section 2(w) Cr.P.C. and under Section 24(8) proviso Cr.P.C. and also under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is permitted to come on record as corespondent to the bail petitions of the accused respectively in assisting the prosecution and in bringing to the notice of the Court any relevant facts that fall for consideration in deciding the bail applications on merits to sub serve the ends of justice."
12. Learned counsel for the Petitioner in I.A.No.2 of 2023 further relied on a decision in Jagjeet Singh and others vs Ashish Mishra @ Monu and another2, wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court held that:
"20. It is pertinent to mention that the legislature has thoughtfully given a wide and expansive meaning to the expression "victim", which 1 (2015) 2 ALT (Cri) 216 2 (2022) 9 SCC 321 8 "means a person who has suffered any loss or injury caused because of the act or omission for which the accused person has been charged and the expression "victim" includes his or her guardian or legal heir".
22. It cannot be gainsaid that a victim's rights under the amended CrPC are substantive, enforceable, and are another facet of human rights. The victim's right, therefore, cannot be termed or construed restrictively like a brutum fulmen. We reiterate that these rights are independent, incomparable, and are not accessory or auxiliary to those of the State under the CrPC. The presence of the "State" in the proceedings, therefore, does not tantamount to a hearing of a "victim" of the crime.
23. xxxxxx
24. xxxxxx 24.1. First, the Indian jurisprudence is constantly evolving, whereby the right of victims to be heard, especially in cases involving heinous crimes, is increasingly being acknowledged.
24.2. Second, where the victims themselves have come forward to participate in a criminal proceeding, they must be accorded with an opportunity of a fair and effective hearing. If the right to file an appeal against acquittal, is not accompanied with the right to be heard when deciding a bail application, the same may result in a grave miscarriage of justice.
13. It is pertinent to refer the term "victim" in the Criminal Procedure Code, which is as follows:
"Section 2(wa) "victim" means a person who has suffered any loss or injury caused by reason of the act or omission for which the accused person has been charged and the expression "victim" includes his or her guardian or legal heir."
14. Now, it is to be seen whether Petitioner in I.A.No.2 of 2023 can be considered a victim as defined in Section 2(wa) of Cr.P.C. The context of injury used in section 2(wa) of Cr.P.C. require reference to section 44 of IPC since injury had not been defined in the Cr.P.C and in terms of Section 2(y) of the Cr.P.C., the words and expressions used and not defined but defined 9 in the IPC will have meanings respectively assigned to them in that code. Section 44 of the IPC defines injury as under:
"The word 'injury' denotes any harm whatever, illegally caused to any person in body, mind, reputation or property."
From Section 44 of IPC, injury does not necessarily denote physical injury; it can be mental as well. 'Injury' contemplated under section 44 of IPC is harm whatever is illegally caused to any person, etc.
15. In Jagjeet Singh and others' case, as referred to supra, the Hon'ble Apex Court held that:
23. .........We may hasten to clarify that "victim" and "complainant/informant" are two distinct connotations in criminal jurisprudence. It is not always necessary that the complainant/informant is also a "victim", for even a stranger to the act of crime can be an "informant", and similarly, a "victim" need not be the complainant or informant of a felony.
16. This Court holds that a relationship must exist between the injury and the person who suffered it, i.e., the "victim". The injury to the victim must be proximate and cannot be remote. The determination of proximity depends on the specific facts of the case, considering the nature of the injury under Section 44 of IPC.
17. If "injury" refers to harm inflicted on one's mind, then the term 'victim' must extend beyond the person directly affected to include those who are near and dear to the individual. This broader definition recognizes that individuals close to the victim also experience mental anguish or harm 10 to the mind due to the injury suffered by their loved one, whether it pertains to the body, mind, reputation, or property.
18. The Petitioners in Crl.P.No.7969 of 2023, along with other accused in the same case, are accused of presenting false solvency certificates. The proposed Respondent acquired information through the Right to Information Act, 2005, and subsequently took measures to seek the cancellation of their bail. It was solely due to the actions initiated by the proposed Respondent that proceedings were initiated against the Petitioners in Crl.P.No.7969 of 2023 and the other accused.
19. The proposed Respondent in I.A.No.2 of 2023 expresses concern that the Accused in Cr.No.18 of 2019, through P.R.C.No.130 of 2019, received a Court summons but deliberately avoided appearing. This has led to suspicions and an application for certified copies of the entire record in P.R.C.No.130 of 2019. The proposed Respondent alleges that due to the evasive actions of A.1, A.2, and other accused, the cases filed by her have stalled. She claims to have diligently worked to establish that the accused presented false solvency certificates. Furthermore, she filed Writ Petition No.23337 of 2021, seeking a mandamus to scrutinize the records in Cr.No.18 of 2019 and P.R.C.No.130 of 2019, and this court granted relief, directing appropriate action if the presented surety certificates were found to be fake or forged. Given these circumstances, the Court considers the 11 proposed Respondent a victim and grants her impleadment as the 2nd Respondent in I.A.No.2 of 2023.
20. Accordingly, this Interlocutory Application is allowed.
Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, in this application, shall stand closed.
______________________________ JUSTICE T. MALLIKARJUNA RAO Date: 07.12.2023 MS 12 THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE T. MALLIKARJUNA RAO I.A.No.02 OF 2023 IN CRIMINAL PETITION No.7969 OF 2023 Date: 07.12.2023 MS