The court emphasized that furnishing false information requires a deliberate intention to cause wrongful gain or wrongful loss, and the mere breach of contract cannot give rise to criminal prosecution unless fraudulent or dishonest intention is shown right at the beginning of the transaction.

ORDER :

The petitioner herein, who is arrayed as Accused No.2 in C.C.No.441 of 2018 on the file of the Court of the Learned Additional Junior Civil Judge/Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Ponnur, Guntur District, filed the present quash petition.

2. Pursuant to a complaint made by the 2nd respondent herein, the Police registered F.I.R.No.189/2015 against the petitioner/Accused No.2 and his father/Accused No.1 initially for the offence punishable under Section 182 and later added Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code (for short “IPC”). In the complaint, it was alleged that Accused No.1 i.e., father of the petitioner/Accused No.2, applied for a belated Date of Birth Certificate for the purpose of Passport to Accused No.2/petitioner through Mee-Seva, Ponnur on 07.12.2014, in support of the said application, Accused No.1 and Accused No.2 submitted respective Notarized Affidavits stating that Accused No.2 was born on “11.01.1994” in Kattempudi Village, but in the enquiry it came to light that the petitioner’s date of birth was recorded in Ponnur Municipal Records as “11.01.1993” and thus it is clear that Accused Nos.1 & 2 intentionally suppressed the real truth in order to mislead the Revenue authorities with a view to obtain a false Date of Birth Certificate. The Police after conducting investigation filed a Charge Sheet, the cognizance of which was taken vide C.C.No.441 of 2018 and the same is sought to be quashed. During the course of considering the matter, it transpired that the petitioner herein along with his father/Accused No.1 filed a discharge petition vide Crl.M.P.No.7163 of 2019 under Section 239 of Cr.P.C and the same was dismissed by the Learned Magistrate on 27.06.2022. In view of the same, the petitioner herein filed I.A.No.2 of 2022 to amend the main prayer in the Criminal Petition and also to set aside the said order dated 27.06.2022.

3. Heard Mr.K.Chidambaram, Learned Senior Counsel. Also heard the Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents.

4. The Learned Senior Counsel submits that the petitioner herein/Accused No.2 was admitted into School by his parents by entering his date of birth as “11.01.1994” and that he continued his studies with the said date of birth and passed S.S.C., in the year 2009 with “A” Grade, Intermediate in the year 2011 with “A” Grade by securing 970 marks out of 1000 and later completed Engineering from Jawaharlal Nehru Technological University, Kakinada in the year 2018 with “A” (Excellent) Grade in Electronics & Communication Engineering and he was the Pratibha Awardee for the year 2015. He submits that the Household Card, Aadhar Card, Election Voter ID Card, Driving License, PAN Card shows the date of birth of the petitioner/Accused No.2 as “11.01.1994”. He further submits that the petitioner appeared for Group-I Services pursuant to the Notification issued by the Andhra Pradesh Public Service Commission in the year 2018 and was selected to the post of District Fire Officer. While stating that the petitioner was awarded a Gold Medal in B.Tech., and won several prizes, the learned counsel submits that in view of the pendency of the Criminal case, the future prospects of the petitioner are jeopardized. He submits that the allegations in the Charge Sheet even taken at their face value, would not attract the offences registered against the petitioner/Accused No.2 under Sections 182 or 420 of IPC. The Learned Counsel submits that the petitioner prosecuted his studies althrough with date of birth as “11.01.1994”, as mentioned in the Secondary School Certificate (S.S.C.,) issued by the Board of Secondary Education, Government of Andhra Pradesh and an application was made for Passport on the basis of the same along with other documents and in such circumstances, the question of the petitioner giving false information or committing an offence of Cheating, under any stretch of imagination would not arise. In the light of the ample material on record reflecting the petitioner’