Telangana High Court
Mohd. Raziuddin Siddiqui Md. Mohiuddin vs The State Of Telangana on 16 August, 2022
Author: D. Nagarjun
Bench: D. Nagarjun
THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE D. NAGARJUN
CRIMINAL PETITION No.3300 of 2019
ORDER:
This petition is filed by the petitioner/A2 to quash the proceedings against him in C.C.No.651 of 2018 on the file of the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad. The petitioner is accused No.2, who made an attempt to get himself enrolled as an advocate in the State Bar Council on the basis of a fake graduation certificate.
The facts in brief as per the charge sheet are as under:
The petitioner/A2 has studied Intermediate from one of the colleges of Hyderabad and on seeing the advertisement in Deccan Chronicle Newspaper regarding giving certificate of graduation in one sitting, has approached A1 and paid Rs.25,000/- as fee in March, 2009. A1 made A2 to writ examination in the same institute. Accordingly, the petitioner wrote examination in the centre, however, he was not given any certificate, on which the petitioner/A2 has picked up quarrel with A1 as to why the certificate could not be given. On quarrelling with A1, the petitioner/A2 was given a certificate of B.Com., as if he has studied in Bundelkhand University. Subsequent to that, the petitioner by filing the said B.Com., 2 certificate, has joined L.L.B at Nanded and completed the law and filed an application for enrolment.
The Secretary of the A.P. State Bar Council has in routine manner sent the certificate of B.Com., to the Bundelkand University for verification and report as to whether the said certificate is genuine or not. The Bundelkand University officials have addressed a letter back to the Secretary, A.P. State Bar Council stating that the certificate submitted by the petitioner/A2 is fake and he has never studied graduation in the University. On receipt of the said letter, the Secretary of the Bar Council has filed a complaint before the police, who have registered a case against the petitioner and A1 for the offences under Sections 468, 420 and 471 IPC.
During the course of investigation, the police have recorded the statements of the de-facto complainant i.e., Secretary of the A.P. Bar Council and also collected all the documents, including the application filed by the petitioner/A2 for enrolment in the A.P. State Bar Council, and all the certificates enclosed by the petitioner/A2 along with the said application and also the correspondence by the A.P. Bar Council, the Bundhelkand University and other connected records. On completion of investigation, a charge sheet has been filed. Aggrieved by the taking of cognizance of the case against the petitioner and A1 for 3 the offence under Sections 468, 420 and 471 IPC, the petitioner/A2 filed this petition seeking quashemnt of the charge sheet.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is innocent and he is no way concerned with the alleged forgery of the document and if at all anything is done, it is only by A1 and the petitioner has approached A1 institution basing on an advertisement in Deccan Chronicle and paid fee. The petitioner has written the examination and completed all the formalities required and then got the certificate and therefore, he is totally innocent. What A1 has done and how A1 has got the certificate is no way concerned by the petitioner, as he is not aware, he is not part of any sort of conspiracy, he is nothing to do with the alleged offences and therefore sought for quashment of the charge sheet.
On perusal of the documents filed along with the charge sheet, it is clear that the petitioner/A2 has approached A1 on seeing a classified advertisement in the Deccan Chronicle and A1 has informed that the petitioner/A2 has to write examination and to pay Rs.25,000/-. Accordingly, the petitioner/A2 has paid Rs.25,000/- in three instalments and also appeared for examination. Up to this so far so good. According to the prosecution version, on investigation A1 has not given the 4 certificate to the petitioner/A2, as promised, even writing the examination, on which the petitioner/A2 has demanded A1 to give the certificate, then the petitioner was given B.Com., certificate of Bundelkand University.
The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner/A2 is innocent cannot be accepted. On careful reading of the alleged confessional statement, the petitioner/A2 has appeared for some examination and certificate was not given by A1, and on his demand, suddenly A1 has given a certificate to the petitioner/A2 that he has completed B.Com., at Bundelkand University. The question arises that though the petitioner/A2 has appeared for examination from some other University for some other course, how, the petitioner gets a certificate that he has completed B.Com., at Bundelkand University. Further, the certificates filed by the police along with the charge sheet would go to show that Bundelkand University has given a degree of Bachelor of Commerce that the petitioner/A2 has appeared for examination at Bipin Bihari Mahavidyalaya at Jhansi. Similarly, the statement of marks also go to show that the petitioner/A2 has appeared B.Com., Part-I in 2005, B.Com., Part-II in 2006, B.Com., final in 2007 at Bipin Bihari Mahavidyalaya at Jhansi. So these certificates stand in the name of the petitioner/A2. If at all the petitioner is really 5 innocent, once A1 gives these certificates which show that the petitioner/A2 has studied B.Com., for a period of three years at Jhansi, then he could have refused to take them stating that he has not studied them. It is not the case of the petitioner/A2 that the course he has completed is correspondence-cum-contract programme, wherein there is a possibility that though the certificate will be given in the name of University, it is clearly mentioned that the petitioner has appeared examination at one of the centres at Hyderabad. Even according to the petitioner, he has appeared for examination at Hyderabad, he has never visited Jhansi, but the certificate speaks otherwise, and the petitioner is an educated man, and also completed LLB and wanted to become lawyer, at least at the time of filing of the application for enrolment, he should be aware that the certificate of B.Com., which he was holding as if he has studied in Bipin Bihari Mahavidyalaya at Jhansi is not a genuine certificate.
It is also further to be noted that basing on the said fake B.Com., certificate, the petitioner has also filed an application at one of the law colleges at Nandad and got admission and successfully completed the law course and obtained the law degree. Therefore, the petitioner not only knowing that the certificate given was fake, but has also used it as genuine and obtained the law degree from one of the colleges from Nandad 6 and also filed the same certificate along with LLB certificate for getting himself enrolled as an advocate in A.P. Bar Council.
Therefore, considering the above discussion, it is clear that there is a strong material against the petitioner to hold that the petitioner being aware of the fact that he has got a fake degree certificate used the same and obtained the law degree and also made an attempt to get himself enrolled as an advocate. Considering the circumstances, there is a material against the petitioner to hold that the petitioner has committed the offence punishable under Sections 471 and 429 IPC.
However, so far as the offence under Section 468 IPC is concerned, it is not even the case of the prosecution that the petitioner/A2 has created the B.Com., certificate by way of forgery, but as per the allegations, it is A1, who has manufactured this fake degree certificate by collecting Rs.25,000/- in a sense though the petitioner/A2 is a victim in the hands of A1, however, for the simple reason that the petitioner/A2 having aware of the fact that the certificate given by A1 is fake, still he had continued to use the same as genuine certificate.
Therefore, considering the material on record, the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is innocent and he is no way connected with the 7 alleged offences cannot be accepted and it is not a fit case for quashing the charge sheet.
In the result, the criminal petition is dismissed. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.
_____________________ Dr. D. NAGARJUN, J Date: 16.08.2022.
ES