AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
This petition u/s 482 Criminal Procedure Code has been filed for quashing the proceedings in Cr.No. 169/98 registered for the offences under Sections 419, 420 and 468 IPC of Police Station, Saroornagar. It is informed that subsequently charge-sheet has also been filed after investigating into the said crime.
The relevant facts may be stated briefly as follows :
The petitioner-accused has been working as an Attendar in Andhra Bank from 1983. In April, 1998, an anonymous application was received by the Andhra Bank Head Office, Vigilance Department at Hyderabad. The copies of which were also marked to the Superintendent of Police, Rangareddy District and several others. On 13-4-98 the Sub-Inspector of Police, Saroornagar police Station, received a copy of that complaint with the endorsement of the Superintendent of Police for registering a case. On the basis of this complaint a case in Cr.No.169/98 mentioned above was registered at the said Police Station on that very day. On the basis of this FIR investigation was taken up by the said police. The allegations made in the complaint are that the petitioner impersonated his brother by name Narasimha and forged some educational certificates like Transfer Certificate from a School and on that basis succeeded in securing a job for himself in Andhra Bank. It is on this basis, a case was registered for an offence u/s 419 IPC initially and after investigation charge-sheet is said to have been filed for offences under Sections 419, 420 and 468 I.P.C.
The learned Counsel for the petitioner seeks to quashing of these proceedings on two grounds.
The first contention is that First Information Report u/s 154 of Cr.PC could not have been recorded on the basis of an anonymous complaint. The contention is that the complainant neither appeared before the Station House Officer personally nor his statement was recorded there. It is then pointed out that as a report on the basis of which a first information can be recorded must be a signed complaint and inasmuch as in this case it is an anonymous complaint, this requirement is not met.
Factually this may not be true inasmuch as the complaint is purported to have been signed by some unemployed youth. But even assuming that it was an unsigned complaint from an anonymous person, the contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner cannot be accepted inasmuch as in this case the Station House Officer of the concerned police station has recorded the First Information Report on the basis of the complaint forwarded and endorsed by the Superintendent of Police, Ranga Reddy. Thus, the report as it reached the police station was in fact signed by the Superintendent of Police after endorsing it.
The contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner in this behalf is that as it is a complaint by an anonymous person, there was no opportunity to the concerned police officer to ascertain its veracity and to vouchsafe its bona fides.
Here, Section 155 of Cr.PC is relevant. Section 155 of Cr.PC contemplates that when an information is given to the officer in-charge of a police station of the commission within the limits of such station of a non-cognizable offence, he shall enter or cause to be entered the substance of the information is a book to be kept by such officer in such form as the State Government may prescribe in this behalf, and refer the informant to the Magistrate.
In this case, the report endorsed and forwarded by the Superintendent of Police to the Station House Officer, Saroornagar Police Station contains definite, specific and ascertainable information about the commission of a cognizable offence. It contains definite allegation naming a specific person that he had impersonated another and that he has forged educational certificates of that person and on the basis of such a representation succeeded in securing a job. There could be no doubt that these allegations do satisfy the requirement of definite information about the commission of cognizable offence.
Thus, there is neither any illegality nor any impropriety in registering a case on the part of the Station House Officer, Saroornagar for an offence u/s 419 of the Indian Penal Code at the police station in Crime No.169 of 1998.
It is true that mere receipt of a report or information regarding commission of a cognizable offence may not necessarily result in taking up investigation. The concerned Station House Officer must be satisfied that there is ground for taking up investigation. In this case, it cannot be said there were no grounds for taking up investigation inasmuch as the complaint received by the Station House Officer contained, as stated above, specific and verifiable information as to commission of a cognizance offence and, therefore, I am unable to accept the contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the proceedings in this case must be quashed on the ground of illegality in registering the First Information Report.
The second contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is based on the provisions regarding limitation for launching prosecution as enacted under Sections 468 and 469 of Cr.PC.
In this case, the petitioner-accused has been charge-sheeted for the offences under Sections 419, 420 and 468 of IPC. Offence u/s 419 of IPC is punishable with imprisonment upto 3 years and the offence u/s 420 of IPC is punishable with imprisonment upto 7 years. Offence u/s 468 of IPC is also punishable with imprisonment upto 7 years. In this case, as the accused is charged with offences which are punishable with imprisonment upto 7 years, the question of limitation would not arise.
Even in respect of offence u/s 419 of IPC, which is punishable with imprisonment which could extend upto three years, the prescribed period of limitation is three years as contemplated u/s 468(2) of Cr.PC.
The argument with regard to limitation is based on the assumption that in this case, the aggrieved person is the brother of the accused-petitioner whom he is said to have impersonated and the documents in whose name he is said to have forged. It is difficult to conceive how the person who is impersonated can alone be an aggrieved person, if the consequence of impersonation affects a person other than the person impersonated. In this case, apparently, it is the Andhra Bank which is the aggrieved person inasmuch as on the basis of impersonation and forged documents, it is the Andhra Bank which was cheated and gave an appointment to the petitioner as per the facts narrate in the charge-sheet.
The further argument on the basis of this assumption was that inasmuch as the brother of the petitioner accused had knowledge of the alleged fact of impersonation and the fact of the petitioner securing a job in Andhra Bank right from 1983, the prosecution launched must be deemed to be beyond limitation. As stated above, the argument based on the assumption that it is the brother of the petitioner-accused who is the person aggrieved, itself is not sustainable. In this case, the first information has been recorded on the basis of an anonymous report which reached the police station on 13-4-1998 and it is on that date the police had for the first time the knowledge about the commission of the offence.
In view of these facts, there is no substance in the contention that the prosecution launched in tin''s case is barred by limitation in view of the provisions in Section 468 of Cr.PC.
The learned Counsel for the petitioner made an attempt to show that inasmuch as the other aggrieved person, namely, Andhra Bank itself has not come forward with any complaint, the registering of the case itself is bad.
As already discussed above, even if the Andhra Bank has not sent any complaint to the police, the fact that the police received definite information as to the commission of cognizable offence was sufficient for them to register a case against the petitioner. There is nothing to show that Andhra Bank had knowledge about the alleged impersonation, cheating or forgery.
Thus, on both the counts the contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the proceedings in this case deserve to be quashed cannot be countenanced.
In the result, the petition is dismissed.
However, the plea of the learned Counsel for the petitioner that considering the fact that the alleged offence relates to an incident which is said to have occurred in 1983, the trial of the case needs to be expedited.
Under the circumstances, it is directed that the trial Court shall expedite the trial in this case at the earthiest at any rate within a period of six months.
The observations made in this order in regard to the merits as to the constitution of the offence are meant merely for the purpose of showing that it is not a case for quashing the proceedings. They are not meant to be observations on merits, and the trial Court will come to its own conclusions after the trial in the light of the material placed before it uninfluenced by the observations made in this order on questions of fact.