Telangana High Court
Smt Kundrapu Annapurna vs State Of Telangana, Thro. P.S., Rep By ... on 20 July, 2022
Author: D. Nagarjun
Bench: D. Nagarjun
THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE D. NAGARJUN
CRIMINAL PETITION No.6394 OF 2017
ORDER:
This petition is filed seeking quashment of FIR in Crime No.39 of 2017 on the file of Sarangapur Jagityal District Town Police Station filed against the petitioner/A1 and others alleging that she has committed the offence punishable under Sections 177, 197, 198 and 420 IPC.
2. The facts in brief which necessitated the petitioner to file this petition are as under:
3. The petitioner is working as a Member of the Mandal Praja Parishad of Medpally-1, whereas the de-facto complainant is working as President of the same mandal parishad. The petitioner did not attend the general body meeting of Zilla Praja Parishad, Karimnagar on the ground that she was suffering from ill-health and produced a medical certificate issued by A2, wherein the petitioner was advised to take bed rest from 08.05.2016 to 10.05.2016. The de-facto complainant has made an enquiry and found that in respect of issuance of medical certificate in favour of the petitioner the entries were made later 2 in the concerned register of hospital. Basing on which, police have registered a case in Crime No.39 of 2017 for the offence under Sections 177, 197, 198 and 420 IPC and issued FIR. Aggrieved by the same, the present petition is filed.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the de-facto complainant has no locus standi to file the complaint. The certificate issued by the petitioner is not fake and it is a genuine one given by A2, who is a qualified medical doctor. The de-facto complainant belongs to other political party and on the election petition filed by the petitioner, she has lost her Presidency and that though the certificate is submitted by the petitioner on 08.05.2016, the de-facto complainant filed a complaint on 25.06.2017 with a lapse of more than one year and therefore prayed the Court to allow the petition.
5. On the other hand, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor has submitted that the case is under investigation and at this stage, this Court cannot come to a conclusion that whether the petitioner has committed the offence or not and prayed the Court to dismiss the petition.
3
6. Heard both sides and perused the record.
7. Now, the point for determination is whether the offences alleged against the petitioner in Crime No.39 of 2017 can be quashed?
8. In order to appreciate the same, it is to be considered as to whether the allegations leveled against the petitioner in the FIR constitutes that the petitioner has committed an offences under Section 177 IPC. Section 177 IPC reads as follows:
"177. Furnishing false information.--Whoever, being legally bound to furnish information on any subject to any public servant, as such, furnishes, as true, information on the subject which he knows or has reason to believe to be false, shall be punished with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both; or, if the information which he is legally bound to give respects the commission of an offence, or is required for the purpose of preventing the commission of an offence, or in order to the apprehension of an offender, with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both."
9. In order to fasten the liability under Section 177 IPC, the police are required to prove that the petitioner is legally bound to furnish information on some subject to the public servant has furnished a false information. The illustrations appended to the Section are as under:
4
"(a) A, a landholder, knowing of the commission of a murder within the limits of his estate, willfully misinforms the Magistrate of the district that the death has occurred by accident in consequence of the bite of a snake. A is guilty of the offence defined in this section.
(b) A, a village watchman, knowing that a considerable body of strangers has passed through his village in order to commit a dacoity in the house of Z, a wealthy merchant residing in a neighbouring place, and being bound under clause, 5, section VII, 1[Regulation III, 1821], of the Bengal Code, to give early and punctual information of the above fact to the officer of the nearest police station, willfully misinforms the police officer that a body of suspicious characters passed through the village with a view to commit dacoity in a certain distant place in a different direction. Here A is guilty of the offence defined in the later part of this section.
Explanation.--In section 176 and in this section the word "offence" includes any act committed at any place out of 3[India], which, if committed in 3[India], would be punishable under any of the following sections, namely, 302, 304, 382, 392, 393, 394, 395, 396, 397, 398, 399, 402, 435, 436, 449, 450, 457, 458, 459 and 460; and the word "offender" includes any person who is alleged to have been guilty of any such act."
10. Both the illustrations would go to show that if a person misleads the authorities in respect of any information then offence under Section 177 IPC can be fastened. It is the contention of the de-facto complainant that the petitioner, who had to attend the general body meeting of the Zilla Praja Parishad, could not attend the meeting and filed a false medical certificate. The petitioner is not an employee of Zilla Praja Parishad office, she is a public representative and was elected by the people in the elections, hence, she is not bound to 5 inform as to why she has not attended the meeting. Therefore, Section 177 IPC is not applicable to the facts of the case.
11. The other offence is under Section 197 IPC, which reads as under:
"197. Issuing or signing false certificate.-- Whoever issues or signs any certificate required by law to be given or signed, or relating to any fact of which such certificate is by law admissi- ble in evidence, knowing or believing that such certificate is false in any material point, shall be punished in the same manner as if he gave false evidence."
12. Section 198 IPC deals with using the false certificate as a true certificate. Both Sections 197 and 198 IPC deal with false certificates. It is the case of the de-facto complainant that the petitioner has submitted a certificate given by the authorized doctor i.e., A2. It is not alleged that the petitioner has manipulated or forged or created the medical certificate and admittedly the certificate submitted by her is not a false one and it is true certificate given by A2, then certainly she has got a right to submit the same. Therefore, the ingredients of Sections 197 and 198 IPC are also not applicable.
13. It is not the case of the de-facto complainant or the police that A2 is not a qualified doctor. Even according to the police, 6 A2 is a qualified doctor and that he has given the medical certificate, but the de-facto complainant has assumed herself that the certificate submitted by A2 is a false certificate. Further, the de-facto complainant is not the Executive Officer of Zilla Praja Parishad. She is only the President of Mandal Praja Parishath. The office of the Zilla Praja Parishad will take care of the presence and absence of its President and Members. The petitioners and the de-facto complainant not being employees and are only public representatives need not inform that they are absent and if they are absent to submit medical certificate, if their absence is on medical grounds. The de-facto complainant has directly filed a complaint before the police. She is not an aggrieved party, she has no locus standi. If at all the petitioner has furnished any certificate in the office of Zilla Praja Parishad and if the said office feels that the petitioner has submitted a fake certificate, an enquiry has to be conducted to ascertain whether the certificate is true or not. No reason is explained in the complaint as to how the petitioner, who is not a medical practitioner, can come to the conclusion that A2 has given a false certificate.
7
14. It is not the case of the de-facto complainant that by filing false medical certificate, the petitioner has drawn some medical bills or caused loss to the State exchequer or anybody. By filing the medical certificate the petitioner has explained the reason for not attending the meeting.
15. During the course of hearing, it is reported that though disciplinary proceedings have been initiated against A2, subsequently they were dropped. Therefore, as long as there is no record even as on today since 2017 that A2 has given any false medical certificate, continuation of proceedings against the petitioner/A1 amounts to abuse of process of law.
16. In addition to that, the petitioner has filed number of documents before this Court to show that herself and the de- facto complainant are in inimical terms. Both are public representatives. On a complaint filed by the petitioner before the Election Tribunal in Election O.P.No.56 of 2014, the election of the de-facto complainant was set aside on the ground that she has mislead the election officer that she has no more two children. The de-facto complainant preferred W.P.No.12502 of 2017, wherein interim orders are passed in 8 her favour and that the said orders were challenged by the petitioner in W.A.No.569 of 2017 and the same was allowed setting aside the interim order passed in the writ petition holding that the finding of the Election Tribunal setting aside the election of the petitioner. Not only that, on a complaint made by the petitioner that the de-facto complainant has mislead the Election Commission with false certificates, a criminal case is also registered against her.
17. Further, there is enormous delay in filing the complaint. The petitioner has submitted the medical certificate on 08.05.2016, but the complaint is filed on 25.06.2017 before the police after lapse of more than one year. No explanation is offered as to why delay has occurred in filing the complaint.
18. Considering the discussion above, this Court is of the opinion that the de-facto complainant has no locus standi to file a complaint, there is no prima facie material at all to show that the certificate produced by the petitioner is fake or created, the petitioner/A1 was not under the obligation to file any medical certificate, even if she was absent for any meeting. Even if some certificate is produced in order to explain her 9 absence for not attending the general body meeting, the same cannot be an offence as mentioned in FIR that the accused has committed offence punishable under Sections 177, 197, 198 and 420 IPC. None of the ingredients of the offences mentioned above will attract even if all the contents of the petition are proved. Further, even as of now, there is not even a scrap of paper to show that A2 has issued any false medical certificate. Therefore, continuation of proceedings would amounts to abuse of process of law.
19. Accordingly, the criminal petition is allowed and the FIR in Crime No.39 of 2017 on the file of Sarangapur Jagityal District Town Police Station against the petitioner/A1 is hereby quashed.
Miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.
_____________________ Dr. D. NAGARJUN, J Date: 20.07.2022 ES