Telangana High Court
Vodanala Narsimha Babu vs State Of Telangana on 21 July, 2022
Author: D. Nagarjun
Bench: D. Nagarjun
THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE D. NAGARJUN
CRIMINAL PETITION No.4683 OF 2020
ORDER:
This petition is filed seeking quashment of C.C.No.2010 of 2019 on the file of the VI Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Warangal.
2. The facts of the case as can be gathered from the charge sheet, are as under:
3. On 02.04.2019 at 1.30 p.m., the de-facto complainant has filed a private complaint under Section 200 Cr.P.C., against the petitioner/accused stating that his daughter Pallavi, the wife of Dr. B. Praveen has filed a complaint on which police after investigation has filed charge sheet in C.C.No.2832 of 2018 for the offence under Section 498-A IPC and other offences.
4. The petitioner/accused by misrepresenting, impersonating, playing fraud and cheating has dishonestly submitted an affidavit in Crl.M.P.No.2038 of 2018 in Crime No.35 of 2018 before the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Warangal. In the affidavit filed in Crl.M.P.No.2038 of 2018, the petitioner, though not related with the de-facto complainant's 2 family and his daughter at any point of time with any sort of relation, dishonestly misrepresented the Court and made a false declaration that he is the father of Pallavi, the de-facto complainant in the said crime. Pallavi is the daughter of the de-facto complainant herein and not the daughter of the petitioner. The petitioner is a stranger and they were never had any relationship with the de-facto complainant's family.
5. The de-facto complainant has filed a complaint before the police, Subedari and Commissioner of Police, Warangal, through registered post with acknowledgement due, dated 22.12.2018. When the police refused to receive and register the case, the complaint is filed before the learned Magistrate along with sworn affidavit. The complaint was referred to the police by the learned Magistrate under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., and on receipt of the same, police have registered the same as FIR in Crime No.131 of 2019 for the offence under Sections 417, 420, 425 IPC. Aggrieved by the registration of FIR, the present petition is filed seeking quashment of FIR.
6. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is not a stranger to the de-facto 3 complainant's family, as the daughter of the de-facto complainant has stated in her statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C., that the petitioner is the relative of her mother-in-law. It is submitted further that in the affidavit filed in support of the petition filed under Rule 188(2) of the Civil Rules of Practice instead of typing as "grand daughter", due to type mistake as "daughter" and that inadvertent mistake cannot be the basis to register a criminal case and he has committed no offence. It is submitted further that there is no intention or mensrea, there is no destruction or damage or change in the property, there is no diminishing of the value or utility, thereby Section 425 IPC is not applicable and that the contents of the complaint do not constitute that the petitioner has committed cheating with dishonest intention to take the property of another person or inducing to deliver the property. It is also submitted that as per Rule 188(2) of the Civil Rules of Practice, a third party can obtain certified copies when good cause is shown.
7. A photocopy of the affidavit, which was typed on a non- judicial stamp paper worth Rs.20/- signed by the petitioner/accused is filed, wherein it is mentioned as under: 4
"AFFIDAVIT I, Vodnala Narasimha Babu, S/o. Vistaraiah, Aged 61 years, Occu: Retired Employee, R/o. Flat No.204, H.No.2-5- 267, Srikrishna Enclave, Nakkalagutta, Hanamkonda, Warangal District, do hreby solemnly affirm and state on oath as under:
1. I am the petitioner herein third party to the proceedings in the above crime and I am acquainted with the facts of the case.
2. I submit that my daughter (N. Pallavi) has filed the above case against Praveen, u/s. 498-A, 506 of IPC. I submit that I am in need of certified copies of FIR along with complaint for the purpose of record and verification, I am ready to pay whatever stamps required for preparation of certified copies of the said record.
Hence, it is just and proper to order to issue certified copies of FIR & complaint, and pass such other orders in the interest of justice.
Sd/-
DEPONENT VERIFICATION: Solemnly affirmed and signed before me by the Deponent on this 11th day of September, 2018 at Hanamkonda."
8. The only grievance of the de-facto complainant is that at second para of the affidavit there is a mention that M.Pallavi is the daughter of the petitioner. According to the de-facto complainant, the petitioner herein is no way connected with M.Pallavi, his daughter. He has also stated in Section 161 Cr.P.C., statement that the petitioner is not at all related to the de-facto complainant. In the private complaint, he was more 5 specific to the effect that the petitioner is a stranger and had no relationship of any sort with their family.
9. The statement of Pallavi recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., is that the petitioner herein is the relative of her mother-in-law. When the petitioner is a relative of the mother- in-law of the said Pallavi, the petitioner is also related to the de- facto complainant, who is the father of the Pallavi. Hence, it is clear that the statement of the de-facto complainant that the petitioner is not related to them is incorrect.
10. There are disputes between the family of the de-facto complainant and the family of the petitioner. However, there is no reason for the de-facto complainant to specifically mention falsely in the complaint that the petitioner is not the relative of the de-facto complainant. It is strange that the grievance of the de-facto complainant is that the petitioner has mentioned Pallavi as his daughter even though he is not her relative. The same person, on the contrary, in the complaint states on oath that the petitioner is no way related to him, which is factually incorrect, as the statement of LW.2 is that the petitioner is related to her mother-in-law. Therefore, the petitioner herein 6 also giving the false information to the Court in the complaint filed under Section 200 Cr.P.C., that he is not at all related to him and he is a stranger. It at all the petitioner has committed any offence by giving false information, the de-facto complainant is also liable in similar way. Hence, the complaint of the de-facto complainant has to be understood and appreciated by keeping that as a backdrop.
11. It is the allegation of the de-facto complainant that by mentioning in the affidavit that Pallavi is his daughter, the petitioner has committed offence punishable under Sections 417, 420 and 425 IPC.
12. In order to prove the offence punishable under Section 417 IPC, the de-facto complainant is expected to prove that the petitioner has committed the offence of cheating as defined under Section 415 IPC, which runs as under:
"415. Cheating, - 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 is likely to cause damage or harm to that person in body, mind, reputation or property, is said to "cheat"."7
13. On perusal of the above provision, it is clear that the de- facto complainant is expected to allege and prove that the petitioner has dishonestly induced a person to deliver the property to any person or to retain that property or shall induce a person to do or omit to do anything otherwise, he would not have done.
14. The petitioner has filed an application under Rule 188(2) of the Rules in Crl.M.P.No.2038 of 2018 and obtained certified copies. If at all the petitioner has mentioned wrongly the relationship with Pallavi in order to obtain the certificate copies, then if at all there is any grievance, it shall be to the Court but not to the de-facto complainant. The said affidavit was filed in the Court by the petitioner. The de-facto complainant is no way concerned with the said petition. It is between the petitioner and the Court and the Court on being convinced with the reason given by the petitioner, certified copies were given. Therefore, if at all any false information is furnished in the affidavit, the aggrieved party is the Court and not the de-facto complainant or his daughter and it is for the Court to initiate any proceedings against the petitioner.
8
15. In the case on hand, by way of filing false affidavit in respect of relationship with the said Pallavi, if at all the petitioner has committed any offence that offence is committed against the Court and thereby cognizance cannot be taken against the petitioner for the offence committed before the Court except on a complaint given by either any of the officer of the Court. In the case on hand, none of the officers of the Court has given any complaint against the petitioner for giving a false affidavit in respect of the relationship of the petitioner with Pallavi.
16. The petitioner is also charged for the offence under Section 420 IPC. Section 420 IPC reads as under:
"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."
17. Section 420 IPC is an aggravated form of Section 417 IPC. If at all any person commits cheating as defined under Section 415 IPC and thereby induces a person so deceive to deliver any property, the offence of cheating under Section 420 IPC applies. 9 In the case on hand, as already observed, if the contents of the complaint are accepted to be true, even then there are no ingredients to hold that the petitioner has committed offence of cheating, which is defined under Section 415 IPC punishable under Section 417 IPC. When there is no cheating, the aggravated form of cheating under Section 420 IPC also does not apply. Therefore, both Sections 420 and 417 IPC are not at all applicable to the facts of the case.
18. The petitioner is also charged for the offence under Section 425 IPC, which reads as under:
"425. Mischief.--Whoever with intent to cause, or knowing that he is likely to cause, wrongful loss or damage to the public or to any person, causes the destruction of any property, or any such change in any property or in the situation thereof as destroys or diminishes its value or utility, or affects it injuriously, commits "mischief".
Explanation 1.--It is not essential to the offence of mischief that the offender should intend to cause loss or damage to the owner of the property injured or destroyed. It is sufficient if he intends to cause, or knows that he is likely to cause, wrongful loss or damage to any person by injuring any property, wheth- er it belongs to that person or not.
Explanation 2.--Mischief may be committed by an act affecting property belonging to the person who commits the act, or to that person and others jointly."
19. The definition of "Mischief" under Section 425 IPC would show that the petitioner must have an intention to cause wrongful loss or damage to the public and cause destruction of 10 property. In the case on hand, there are no allegations that the petitioner was having intention to cause wrongful loss to any person and thereby destroyed the property. Hence, the facts of the case do not attract the ingredients of Section 425 IPC.
20. In fact, Section 425 IPC is not a penal provision, it only defines the definition of Mischief. If at all the contents of complaint show any element of mischief, as defined under Section 425 IPC, the cognizance should have taken under Section 426 IPC, which is a penal provision. This clearly shows that the trial Court has mechanically taken cognizance of the offences against the petitioner.
21. Rule 188(2) of the Rules permits any third party to obtain certified copies by mentioning supported reason. It is the contention of the de-facto complainant that the petitioner in the application filed under Rule 188(2) of the Rules has incorrectly mentioned his relationship with Pallavi as father. If at all the relationship of the petitioner with Pallavi is the basis for the Court to take a decision for permitting the petitioner to take certified copies, then the conduct of the petitioner can be questioned. The Court requires not the relationship of the 11 petitioner with any of the parties connected to the litigation, but the reasons for obtaining the certified copy.
22. In fact, an application under Rule 188(2) of the Rules will be filed only by the persons, who are not the parties to the litigation. All the parties are connected to the litigation, can obtain certified copies directly by filing application for the certified copies. By falsely mentioning the relationship of the petitioner with Pallavi as daughter, the petitioner has neither gained anything nor the de-facto complainant or Pallavi have lost anything in any aspect.
23. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is related to the family of the de-facto complainant through Pallavi's husband. It is submitted further that while mentioning the relationship with Pallavi as grand daughter, due to typographical mistake it is mentioned as daughter. Hence, it can be considered that there is no mens rea on the part of the petitioner to mention the relationship wrongly. The petitioner would have got the certified copies even if he does not mention the Pallavi as his daughter. Even otherwise, whether Pallavi is a daughter or grand daughter, 12 mentioning of the relationship in the affidavit, will not in any way affect any rights of either Pallavi or the de-facto complainant. It is not the case of the petitioner that they lost the property, they lost their reputation and that the petitioner by wrongly mentioning the relationship has taken away the documents belonging to the de-facto complainant. Simply mentioning the relationship with Pallavi does not constitute any offence.
24. Therefore, considering the circumstances from any angle, the petitioner has made out a case that continuation of the proceedings against him certainly amounts to abuse of process of law and therefore, the petition is liable to be allowed.
25. In the result, the criminal petition is allowed and the proceedings in C.C.No.2010 of 2019 against the petitioner on the file of the VI Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Warangal, are hereby quashed.
Miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.
_____________________ Dr. D. NAGARJUN, J Date: 21.07.2022 ES