APHC010146532022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI [3396]

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 2930/2022 Between:

1. DEVARAPU SATYA VENKATA SUDHAKAR, S/O. AMMANNA, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, R/O. D.NO.13-2024, NALLAMVARI STREET, GUNUPUDI, BHIMAVARAM, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT, A.P.

...PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND

1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT BUILDINGS, AMARAVATHI.

2. G G S S CHAKRAVARTHY, S/O. LATE KRISHNA MURTHY, AGED ABOUT. 48 YEARS. OCC . POLICE CONSTABLE, C/O. BHIMAVARAM I TOWN POLICE STATION, BHIMAVARAM, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT, AP.

...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner/accused:

1. PRUDVI RAJU MUDUNURI Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S):

1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP) The Court made the following:

ORDER

The instant petition under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, for short ‘Cr.P.C’ has been filed by the Petitioner/Accused, seeking quashment of proceedings against him in C.C.No.550 of 2021 on the file of the Court of II

Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Bhimavaram for the offences under Sections 420, 465, 468, 471 and 473 of the Indian Penal Code, for short ‘IPC’

2. Heard Sri M.Prudvi Raju, learned counsel for the Petitioner and Ms.K.Priyanka Lakshmi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for Respondent No.1/State. Inspite of service of notice, none appeared for Respondent No.2.

3. Learned counsel for the Petitioner would submit that absolutely there are no allegations made against the Petitioner either to attract the offence of cheating or the offence of forgery or using the forged document as genuine. Learned counsel would further submit that the Petitioner is the sole Accused, who has nothing to do with the alleged offences. In the absence of any specific allegations or the evidence collected during the course of investigation, continuation of criminal proceedings against the Petitioner is mere abuse of process of law. To buttress his contentions, learned counsel has placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Nagawwa vs. Veeranna Shivalingapa Konjalgi and others, (1976) 3 SCC 736

4. Per contra, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor would submit that there are specific allegations made against the Petitioner to prima facie attract the offences under Sections 420, 465, 468, 471 and 473 IPC. There is a verifiable material on record which requires investigation at full length of trial. This is not a fit case for quashment. Hence, prayed for dismissal of the petition.

5. As can be seen from the record, the case of Respondent No.2, in brief, is as follows:

Respondent No.2 has been working as a Police Constable in I Town Police Station, Bhimavaram and was attending works of writing records, helping the Writer and also to enter the Tappals received from other offices in the concerned records of the Police Station. That being so, on 18.11.2018 at about 1.00 p.m., on perusal of the tappal in C.No.778/Genl./SDPO-N/2018 and the endorsement therein, which has come from the office of Sub- Divisional Police Officer, Narsapuram, he found that, there were no criminal cases pending against one Devarapu Satya Venkata Sudhakar, S/o.Ammanna, Gunupudi, Bhimavaram in I Town Police Station, Bhimavaram and the certificate to that effect was issued on 22.08.2018 by the D.S.P., Narsapuram and it contains the round seal of the office of Bhimavaram Town Circle. Though there is no Circle Office in Bhimavaram Town, the Petitioner forged the signature of D.S.P, affixed the duplicate stamps and fabricated the certificate and used the same as a genuine document to secure a job in Holiburten, Mumbai.

6. A bare perusal of Section 482 makes it clear that the Code envisages that inherent powers of the High Court are not limited or affected so as to make orders as may be necessary; (i) to give effect to any order under the Code