SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2024 Supreme(Telangana) 1174

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA HYDERABAD
E.V. VENUGOPAL, J.
 
Mumai Ramesh - Petitioner 
Versus
The State of Telangana, rep. by its Public Prosecutor High Court, Hyderabad And Another – Respondents
Criminal Petition No.4752 of 2009
Decided On : 30-09-2024
 

Advocates Appeared:
For Petitioners: Sri Surender Rao learned senior counsel for Sri V.Ramchender Goud.
For the Respondents: Public Prosecutor, Sri Sumanth Ravuri.

A valid written complaint is required under Section 195 Cr.P.C. to initiate criminal proceedings for forgery related to evidence presented in court, highlighting procedural safeguards against wrongful prosecution.

Headnote:(A) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 482 - Prosecution for forgery - Criminal petition filed to quash proceedings initiated under Sections 468, 420, 196, 197, and 198 of IPC - Second respondent's complaint based on purportedly forged documents presented during election proceedings does not constitute a valid complaint under Section 195(1)(b)(ii) Cr.P.C. - No written complaint was made to initiate criminal proceedings, which is a prerequisite for cognizance. (Paras 12-20)

(B) Legal principles on initiating criminal proceedings - The court clarified that a court's finding of forgery must be followed by a written complaint under Section 340 Cr.P.C. to initiate prosecution, emphasizing the necessity for adherence to procedural law and the requirement of a complaint for taking cognizance. (Paras 18, 21, 22)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner contested for the position of Sarpanch but faced allegations of producing forged documents regarding the date of birth of his child, resulting in proceedings initiated by the second respondent, a Junior Civil Judge, after noting irregularities in evidence presented in a related election petition. (Paras 3-6)

Findings of Court:
The proceedings initiated against the petitioner were quashed as they lacked a foundational written complaint necessary under Section 195 Cr.P.C., rendering the registration of the crime void. (Paras 21-24)

Issues: Whether the second respondent had the authority to direct police to initiate criminal proceedings against the petitioner without a formal complaint as required by law. (Paras 10-11)

Ratio Decidendi: The court concluded that as the allegations of forgery were not linked to documents produced in legal proceedings, they could not invoke the bar under Section 195(1)(b)(ii) Cr.P.C. and emphasized that a valid complaint must precede any criminal action initiated by the court. (Paras 20, 23)

Result: Criminal petition allowed; proceedings quashed.

ORDER :

E.V. VENUGOPAL, J.

1 This criminal petition, under Section 482 Cr.P.C, is filed seeking to quash the proceedings against the petitioner herein in Cr.No.51 of 2009 on the file of P.S Basar, Nizamabad District, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 468 , 420, 196, 197 and 198 of IPC.

2 Heard Sri Surender Rao, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of Sri V.Ramchander Goud, learned counsel for the petitioner; Ms.S.Madhavi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for the first respondent - State and Sri Sumanth Ravuri, learned counsel for the second respondent and perused the record.

3 The genesis for filing of the present criminal petition is that on a complaint lodged by the second respondent herein – Sri A.Chandra Babu, Junior Civil Judge, Bhainsa, Adilabad (as he then was) alleging that the petitioner had produced forged documents and gave false information in the case filed before him i.e. O.P.No.4 of 2006 with reference to his election as Sarpanch of Basar Gram Panchayat and during the course of arguments the same was noticed by him. Consequent upon the said complaint made to the Superintendent of Police, Adilabad District, the present crime was registered against the petitioner for the offences stated supra. The allegation was that the petitioner had placed forged documents to substantiate his claim that his third daughter was born on 29.4.1995 and to authenticate the same, the petitioner placed reliance on the school records where she was joined first and the sterilization certificate issued by the Government Headquarters Hospital, Nizamabad dated 27.6.1995.

4 The factual matrix was that the petitioner herein and one N.Sudershan Rao contested to the post of Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat, Basar scheduled on 10.8.2006. But, at the time of filing of nominations, the said Sudershan Rao filed objections before the Returning Officer alleging that the petitioner was having a third child who was born on 08.8.1998 which was after the cut off date i.e. 30.5.1995 and therefore he is disqualified to contest in the election in terms of S.No.19 (3) of A.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1994. However, the said objections were not considered and the petitioner herein succeeded in the election to the post of Sarpanch, Basar Gram Panchayat with a margin of 1000 votes. Thereafter, the losing candidate Sudershan Rao lodged Election Petition before the Court of Junior Civil Judge, Bhainsa, the second respondent herein, which was numbered as O.P.No.4 of 2006. On contest, the second respondent delivered Order dated 16.6.2009. During the course of trial in the said O.P, the petitioner in the O.P. by name Sudershan Rao filed documentary evidence marked as Exs.P.1 to P.14. So also the petitioner herein who was respondent in the said O.P also filed documents marked as Exs.R.1 to R.10.

5 While delivering the Order in the said O.P. the second respondent herein observed that the petitioner influenced R.W.3 - Dr.S.Rajeshwar Rao who worked in Government Hospital, Mudhole from 01.11.1989 to 31.7.2005 to issue date of birth certificate of his third child, who is not competent authority. So also Ex.R.4 Sterilization certificate on which he is totally depending to prove that his wife underwent sterilization operation on 27.6.1995 was not signed by P.W.3. P.W.5 gave evidence that she did not sign Ex.R.4 and that the signature which Ex.R.4 bears was not that of P.W.5. Therefore, the second respondent found that Ex.R.4 is a forged document.

6 Arriving at such conclusions and findings, the second respondent marked a copy of the Order to the Superintendent of Police, Adilabad to take action against the petitioner herein as per law and against the responsible persons who filed the forged documents and submitted false information to the Court. Basing on the said complaint lodged by the second respondent, Cr.No.51 of 2009 was registered on the file of P.S, Basar, Nizamabad District for the offences punishable under Sections 468 , 420, 196, 197 and 198 I

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top