Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
S.K.Nooruddin vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh on 6 July, 2020
Author: M.Venkata Ramana
Bench: M.Venkata Ramana
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE M.VENKATA RAMANA
CRIMINAL PETITION No.2258 of 2020
ORDER:
Heard.
2. This is an application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. filed by the petitioner in Cr.No.69 of 2018 registered for the offences under Sections 465, 468, 471, 419 and 420 I.P.C. by S.H.O., Piler Urban P.S., Chittoor District.
3. The case of the prosecution is that one Smt. S.D.Pyari John @ Lal Bi, W/o. Late Sri S.D.Ahamed Basha, resident of Piler had sent a petition dated 12.12.2011 to the then District Registrar, Chittoor alleging that there was tampering of records in Sub Registrar Office, Piler relating to the lands claimed by her. The prosecution case further makes out that an enquiry was initiated thereon by the authorities of Registration Department and ultimately the fact that the concerned records claimed by the complainant were found meddled with, bringing out false entries in the office of the Sub Registrar, Piler. Assistance of FSL, Hyderabad was also sought by the District Registrar, Chittor in this process. Thereupon a complaint was presented by the Sub Registrar, Piler on 09.06.2018 to the police concerned, where a case was registered on 09.06.2018 and it is stated to be under investigation.
4. Sri Challa Sivasankar, learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner was a clerk during the relevant period, which according to the FIR was in between 05.07.2017 and 12.08.2008, and that he is being harassed by the police as if responsible for the alleged tampering MVR,J CRLP.No.2258 of 2020 2 with the records in the office. The learned counsel for the petitioner further contends that not only the petitioner but also there were several others including Sub Registrar, who were responsible for the affairs in the office and that, making out a case against him, who is a retired employee, after 10 years of the alleged transaction, by the police, is absolutely without any basis. The learned counsel for the petitioner further contends that under the guise of this case, the police are trying to harass the petitioner and on account of the Covid situation he could not respond to the notice issued by the police under Section 41-A Cr.P.C. Thus stating mainly basing on the inordinate delay in pursuing the matter either in presenting application by the complainant to the concerned authority of the Registration department or presenting of complaint to the police by this department, it is contended that the petitioner is justified in requesting anticipatory bail.
5. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor opposed this petition stating that this case involves a serious fraud of tampering with the records of the Sub Registrar office and a public authority and therefore no lenience as such can be shown. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor further contends that having regard to the nature of the transaction and its gravity, particularly when the petitioner did not respond to the notice under Section 41A Cr.P.C., there cannot be any lenience or indulgence by the Court in exercising discretion in favour of the petitioner and to grant anticipatory bail.
6. The material on record makes out the circumstances under which Smt. S.D.Pyari John @ Lal Bi has sent a petition to the District Registrar, Chittoor alleging tampering of records to her detriment. The MVR,J CRLP.No.2258 of 2020 3 material further makes out that there is litigation between herself and her opponents and the matter had also reached High Court then at Hyderabad by way of writ petitions. The civil dispute seems to be pending as such.
7. The material further makes out that in the course of such civil dispute and the connected proceedings Smt. S.D.Pyari John @ Lal Bi had come to know about the tampering of records and infact, that propelled her to present a complaint in the nature of a petition to the District Registrar, Chittoor on 12.12.2011.
8. It is true that there is delay in presenting the matter and yet it cannot by itself be a factor in this case having regard to the chequered events that had taken place in between. Thus, strenuous contentions advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner that delay is a major factor to be taken into consideration in this respect, cannot stand.
9.The First Information Report did not specifically mention the name of the petitioner as an accused. But the fact remained that he was a clerk then working in Sub Registrar Office, Piler. The investigating agency apparently had made certain efforts in the course of investigation and for such reason, a notice was served on the petitioner under Section 41A CR.P.C. Without responding to such notice on the premise that Covid situation intervened, the petitioner apparently made efforts to dodge the process of law. The material on record further shows that he filed an application for anticipatory bail before the court of the learned XI Additional District & Sessions Judge, Piler in Crl.M.P.No.205 of 2016 for grant of anticipatory bail and it was dismissed. Thus, the present effort by the petitioner is in consequence thereof.
MVR,J CRLP.No.2258 of 2020 4
10. As rightly contended by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, having regard to the nature of the allegations in the matter and its gravity, it is rather undesirable to exercise discretion in favour of the petitioner. It is true that the petitioner is a retired employee and he is no more in office. Yet, it is not a factor by itself to exercise discretion in his favour. The offences alleged against the petitioner are quiet serious. In exercising discretion in terms of Section 438 Cr.P.C., these factors cannot be overlooked as such and that they have a great bearing in the matter.
11. Thus finding no justification to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner, this petition has to be dismissed.
12. In the result, the petition is dismissed.
As sequel thereto, all miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.
________________________ JUSTICE M.VENKATA RAMANA Dt:06.07.2020 MVR,J CRLP.No.2258 of 2020 5 HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE M.VENKATA RAMANA CRLP No.2258 of 2020 Dt:06.07.2020 RR