Page 1

REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1305 of 2013
Umesh Kumar Appellant
Versus
State of Andhra Pradesh Respondent
With
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.130 of 2013
J U D ! M E N T
D". B.S. CHAUHAN# J.
1. Both these appeals have been preferred against the impugned
judgment and order dated 11..!"1! passed b# the $igh %ourt of
Andhra Pradesh at $#derabad in %riminal Petition &o. 1!'(1 of !"11
b# )a# of )hi*h the $igh %ourt has +uashed the *harge sheet in %.%.
&o. ,,, of !"11 in respe*t of the offen*e under Se*tion -. of /ndian
Penal %ode0 1.-" 1hereinafter referred to as 2/P%34. $o)ever0 it has
not +uashed the *harge sheet in respe*t of offen*es punishable under
Page 2
Se*tions '10 1!"5B and !"1 /P%. $en*e0 these *ross appeals b# both
parties i.e. the a**used and the State of Andhra Pradesh.
!. 6a*ts and *ir*umstan*es giving rise to these appeals are that7
A. A letter dated !!..!"11 )as re*eived b# the Se*retar#0
8inistr# of $ome Affairs0 Union of /ndia0 purported to have been
)ritten b# one Shri 8.A. Khan 18ember of Parliament4 en*losing a
representation of All /ndia Banjara Seva Samithi 1hereinafter referred
to as the 2Samithi34 as9ing for an impartial en+uir# against Shri V.
:inesh Redd#0 the then :; 1Vigilan*e and <nfor*ement4 :epartment
= respondent no.! alleging that he had amassed disproportionate assets
in the name of his )ife and her po)er of attorne# holders. A large
number of do*uments )ere anne>ed in support of the allegations in
the *omplaint. ?he @oint Se*retar#0 8inistr# of $ome Affairs
for)arded the said *omplaint to the %hief Se*retar#0 ;ovt. of A.P. on
,.,.!"11 for en+uir# into the matter. ?he said letter )as re*eived b#
the %hief Se*retar#0 ;ovt. of A.P. on !A.,.!"11. Bn the same da#0 a
letter purporting to have been sent b# Shri 8.A. Khan0 8.P.0 )as
re*eived b# ;ovt. of A.P. through Shri V. :inesh Redd# = respondent
no.!0 )herein it had been alleged that the letter sent b# the %entral
!
Page 3
;overnment to the %hief Se*retar#0 A.P. had not been authored b#
Shri 8.A. Khan0 8.P.
B. Chen the %hief Se*retar#0 A.P. )as e>amining the matter0 Shri
V. :inesh Redd#0 5 respondent &o.!0 the then :; 1V D <4 )rote a
letter to the State ;overnment anne>ing a *op# of the letter of Shri
8.A. Khan0 8.P.0 dated !A.,.!"11 den#ing the authorship of that
letter and as9 a junior poli*e offi*er to give his report about the
genuineness of the Samithi. Upon being informed that it )as
fi*titious0 respondent no.! as9ed for a detailed en+uir# to be
*ondu*ted to as*ertain )ho had forged the said letter and signature of
Shri 8.A. Khan0 8.P.0 on the *omplaint. 8ean)hile0 Shri V. :inesh
Redd# 5 respondent no.!0 )as appointed as :ire*tor ;eneral of Poli*e0
A.P. on A".-.!"11.
%. ?he State ;overnment as9ed the Additional :.;.P.0 %rime
/nvestigation :epartment0 namel# Shri S.V. Ramana 8urthi to
en+uire and submit a report to the ;overnment in respe*t of
fabri*ating the letter and forging the signature of Shri 8.A. Khan0
8.P. ?he said offi*er Shri Ramana 8urthi did not *ondu*t an#
en+uir# himself0 rather he entrusted the same to one Shri 8. 8alla
Redd#0 :eput# SP0 %/:. After *ondu*ting the en+uir#0 Shri 8alla
A
Page 4
Redd# submitted the en+uir# report to Addl.:.;.P.0 %/: on
!!...!"110 pointing out that one Shri ?. Sunil Redd# obtained
*ertified *op# of the do*uments from the offi*e of the Sub5Registrar
on the instru*tions of some senior offi*er. ?he said *ertified *opies
)ere the same as the ones that had been anne>ed along)ith the
*omplaint submitted in the name of the Samithi.
:. Bn the same da#0 i.e. !!...!"110 Shri Ramana 8urthi0
Addl.:.;.P.0 %/: submitted the said report to Shri V. :inesh Redd#0
respondent no.! see9ing dire*tions and further re+uesting him that the
report be for)arded to the State ;overnment.
<. Bn !...!"110 Shri :inesh Redd# 5 respondent no.! himself
dire*ted the registration of the 6irst /nformation Report 1in short
26/R34 and that an investigation be *ondu*ted b# %/:. As a
*onse+uen*e0 the 6/R )as registered on !,...!"11 and one Shri @.
Ranjan Ratan Kumar0 :#. S.P. )as appointed as the /nvestigating
Bffi*er.
6. :uring the *ourse of investigation0 Shri ?. Sunil Redd# )as
arrested on !-...!"11. $is statement )as re*orded on !'...!"11 under
Se*tion 1-1 of %ode of %riminal Pro*edure0 1('A 1hereinafter referred
to as 2%r.P.%.34 )herein Umesh Kumar0 appellant )as not named.

Page 5
;. ?he report submitted b# Shri 8alla Redd# )as for)arded b#
Shri V. :inesh Redd# 5 respondent no.! to the State ;overnment on
!'...!"11. Shri ?. Sunil Redd# )as remanded to judi*ial *ustod# on
!'...!"11. /t )as during that judi*ial *ustod# on A.(.!"11 that his
statement )as re*orded a se*ond time under Se*tion 1-1 %r.P.%.
)herein he named Umesh Kumar0 appellant. Bn being enlarged on
bail on ,.(.!"110 Shri ?. Sunil Redd# made an appli*ation on
'.(.!"11 under Se*tion A"- %r.P.%. to be*ome an approver.
$. Umesh Kumar0 appellant0 as9ed the ;ovt. of A.P. to hold an
investigation on the basis of the *ertified *op# of the sale deeds
against respondent no.!. /n the mean)hile0 on !-.(.!"110 the
/nvestigating Bffi*er filed a statement in the *ourt that unless the said
Shri ?. Sunil Redd# )as granted pardon0 there )ould be no eviden*e
against Umesh Kumar. ?he trial *ourt vide order dated 1".1".!"11
a**epted the appli*ation of Shri ?. Sunil Redd# and granted him
pardon and made him an approver. $o)ever0 the said order dated
1".1".!"11 )as +uashed b# the $igh %ourt vide judgment and order
dated 1..!"1! in Crit Petition &o. A1(!' of !"11 filed b# Umesh
Kumar0 appellant.
,
Page 6
/. After *ompleting the investigation0 a *harge sheet dated
1.11.!"11 )as filed naming Umesh Kumar0 appellant sho)ing that
offen*es punishable under Se*tions -.0 '10 1!"5B and !"1 /P% had
been *ommitted.
@. Aggrieved0 Umesh Kumar approa*hed the $igh %ourt under
Se*tion .! %r.P.%. for +uashing the said *harge sheet. $o)ever0 the
$igh %ourt vide impugned judgment and order dated 11..!"1!
+uashed the *harge sheet onl# in part as referred to hereinabove.
$en*e0 these *ross appeals.
A. ?he matter )as heard at length and after *onsidering the gravit#
of the allegations against respondent no.! and his alleged
involvement0 this *ourt issued noti*e to him suo motu and after
hearing his *ounsel he )as impleaded as a respondent.
. Shri Ra9esh :)ivedi0 learned senior *ounsel appearing for
Umesh Kumar0 appellant has submitted that the purported *omplaint
sent b# Shri 8.A. Khan0 8.P.0 to the %entral ;overnment )as dul#
supported b# a large number of do*uments sho)ing that respondent
no.! had amassed )ealth )hi*h )as disproportionate to his 9no)n
sour*es of in*ome. $is )ife had pur*hased various benami properties.
-
Page 7
?he *ertified *opies of the said sale deeds are admissible in eviden*e
in *ourt. <ven if the allegations against Umesh Kumar0 appellant are
*orre*t0 there *ould have been a fair en+uir# on the said allegations
against respondent no.!. $o)ever0 the State of A.P. dis*riminated
against the appellant and has ta9en no a*tion )hatsoever till toda# to
e>amine )hether the said respondent has a*+uired disproportionate
assets.
Chen the matter )as referred b# the State ;overnment to the
Addl. :.;.P. dire*tl# )ithout informing respondent no.! to hold an
en+uir# to find out )hether the signature of Shri 8.A. Khan0 8.P.
)as genuine and about the e>isten*e of the Samithi0 in su*h a
situation0 respondent no.! had no business to interfere )ith the matter
and pass an# order. ?he en+uir# had been entrusted to the Addl.
:.;.P. $o)ever0 the said Addl. :.;.P. further entrusted the same to
the :eput# S.P. )ho arrested one Shri ?. Sunil Redd#0 made him an
approver and got his statement re*orded naming Umesh Kumar.
Before the report submitted b# Shri 8alla Redd# *ould rea*h the State
;overnment0 respondent no.! dire*ted that an 6/R be lodged )ithout
)aiting for the dire*tion of the State ;overnment. Sin*e b# that time0
respondent no.! had been appointed as :.;.P.0 A.P.0 unoffi*iall#0 he
'
Page 8
had been in *onta*t )ith Shri 8.A. Khan0 8.P.0 and *reated a
situation )here the en+uir# *ould be dire*ted onl# against Umesh
Kumar0 appellant.
/n spite of the fa*t that this *ourt passed an order on !.'.!"1A
dire*ting the %hief Se*retar#0 A.P. to dis*lose )hether an# en+uir#
had ever been made against the said respondent no.! )ith respe*t to
disproportionate assets0 the %hief Se*retar#0 A.P. had not submitted
an# *lear *ut repl# to this *ourt. ?he %hief Se*retar# gave an evasive
repl# )ithout dis*losing an# fa*t in this regard. ?he eviden*e
*olle*ted illegall# is admissible in la). ?hus0 the ;ovt. of A.P.
should have *ondu*ted in+uir# against respondent &o. ! on the basis
of the sale deeds anne>ed along)ith the *omplaint. ?here is *ollusion
bet)een the State ;overnment and respondent no.! dis*riminating
against the appellant. ?he $igh %ourt ought to have +uashed the
)hole *harge sheet being a produ*t of malafides and illegal a*tivities
of the State and respondent no.!. ?hus0 the appeal filed b# Umesh
Kumar deserves to be allo)ed and appeal filed b# the State is liable to
be dismissed.
,. Shri R. Ven9ataramani0 learned senior *ounsel appearing for
the State has submitted that Umesh Kumar hat*hed a *onspira*# and
.
Page 9
obtained the *ertified *opies of the sale deeds )hi*h )ere in the name
of different persons and filed a *omplaint in the fi*titious name
forging the signature of Shri 8.A. Khan0 8.P. Su*h a fa*t had been
dis*losed b# his a**ompli*e Shri ?. Sunil Redd# and other persons
li9e Shri Eo9esh Kumar et*. Respondent no.! being the head of the
poli*e department has rightl# issued the dire*tion to lodge an 6/R and
investigate the matter. ?he $igh %ourt *ommitted an error
entertaining his petition under Se*tion .! %r.P.%. )ithout an#
ground. As it )as at the pre5emptive stage the matter *ould have been
e>amined b# the *ompetent *ourtF issues raised b# Umesh Kumar
*ould have been e>amined at the time of framing of the *hargesF and
he *ould have filed an appli*ation for dis*harge. As *harges *an be
altered at an# stage during the trial0 the $igh %ourt *ould not have
+uashed the *harge sheet in respe*t of onl# Se*tion -. /P%. ?hus0
the appeal filed b# Umesh Kumar is liable to the dismissed and the
appeal filed b# the State deserves to be allo)ed.
-. Shri U.U. Ealit0 learned senior *ounsel appearing for respondent
no.! has submitted that b# filing a *omplaint in the fi*titious name
and forging the signature of Shri 8.A. Khan0 8.P.0 the reputation of
respondent no.! )as put at sta9e. Admittedl#0 the *omplaint )as in a
(
Page 10
fi*titious name and )ith a forged signature. A *ase had been
registered in respe*t of the same )ith :elhi Poli*e0 ho)ever0 it *ould
not pro*eed further. ?he offi*e of the %/: )as *hosen b# the %hief
Se*retar# and an en+uir# )as entrusted to the said department.
?herefore0 there *ould be no mali*e or malafides so far as respondent
no.! is *on*erned. 8ore so0 the name of Umesh Kumar0 appellant0
)as not dis*losed till the respondent no.! )as appointed as :.;.P. $is
name *ould be unearthed at a subse+uent stage. Shri 8.A. Khan0
8.P. *onta*ted the said respondent and as9ed for a preliminar#
en+uir#. ?he said respondent for)arded the said report. ?herefore0
there *ould be no mali*e against him )hatsoever. /n vie) of the
above0 the appeal of Umesh Kumar0 appellant is liable to be
dismissed.
'. Ce have heard the rival submissions made b# learned *ounsel
for the parties and perused the re*ord.
.. ?he fa*ts are not in dispute. ?he letter dated !!..!"11
purported to have been )ritten b# Shri 8.A. Khan0 8.P.0 suggests
that various properties had been pur*hased b# respondent no.! as
benami and the *opies of the sale deeds et*. filed along)ith the said
1"
Page 11
letter fortif# the same. ?he ;overnment of /ndia )rote a letter to the
%hief Se*retar#0 ;ovt. of A.P. on ,.,.!"11 to *ondu*t an en+uir# in
respe*t of alleged disproportionate assets made b# the respondent no.!
b# pur*hase of huge lands either b# himself or in the name of his )ife
or through benamis. Shri 8.A. Khan0 8.P. vide letter dated
!A.,.!"11 pointed out to the %entral ;overnment that he had not
signed the *omplaint and his signature had been forged. Umesh
Kumar0 appellant had as9ed the State ;overnment to *ondu*t an
en+uir# in respe*t of the disproportionate assets of the respondent
no.!.
?he memo dated !...!"11 issued b# the ;ovt. of A.P. revealed
that respondent no.! had *ondu*ted an en+uir# in the matter of the
letter purported to have been sent b# Sh. 8.A. Khan0 8.P. $e rea*hed
the *on*lusion that the *omplaint had been filed )ith the forged
signature of Shri 8.A. Khan0 8.P.0 and made a re+uest to the State
;overnment to order a %/: probe into the matter of forger#0 *riminal
*onspira*#0 and *heating as no su*h Samithi )as in e>isten*e and the
letter )as bogus. /t )as in vie) thereof0 the ;overnment dire*ted the
en+uir# on the follo)ing issues7
1i4 Cho forged the letter of 8ember of ParliamentG
11
Page 12
1ii4 Cho obtained all the do*uments running into hundreds of pages
from the *on*erned Sub5Registrar3s offi*eG
?he 8emo further revealed that Addl. :.;.P.0 %rime
/nvestigation :epartment )ould *ondu*t the en+uir# into the above
issues and $%&'it ( ")*o"t to th) !o+)",'),t (t (, )("-. /(t). ?he
*op# of the same )as sent to respondent no.! and to the %entral
;overnment in addition to the Addl. :.;.P.
(. Admittedl#0 no attempt has ever been made b# an# person to
hold the en+uir# relating to the genuineness of the allegations in the
*omplaint purported to have been signed b# Shri 8.A. Khan0 8.P.
?he letter dated !...!"11 ma9es it *lear that before the report *ould
rea*h the ;overnment0 respondent no.! dire*ted that an 6/R be
lodged0 en+uir# *ondu*ted and the report of the same be submitted to
his offi*e. ?he do*uments revealed that the statement made b# Shri ?.
Sunil Redd# after his arrest did not reveal the name of Umesh Kumar.
$o)ever0 )hen he )as in poli*e *ustod# and his statement )as
re*orded a se*ond time he named the appellant. /t is also evident that
he )as made an approver )ith the help of the publi* prose*utor and
later on the said order of the trial *ourt )as set aside b# the $igh
%ourt at the behest of Umesh Kumar.
1!
Page 13
1". ?he aforesaid fa*ts *learl# reveal the follo)ing things7
1/4 <ven if the said *omplaint )as in a fi*titious name )ith a
forged signature0 the material anne>ed )ith the said *omplaint
revealed that various properties had been pur*hased b# the respondent
&o.!0 in his name or in the name of his )ife or her ;eneral Po)er of
Attorne# holders.
1//4 ?he %entral ;overnment had as9ed the State ;overnment to
*ondu*t an in+uir# of the allegations in the said *omplaint )hi*h the
State ;overnment did not ensure *omplian*e of.
1///4 /n spite of our order dated !.'.!"1A dire*ting the %hief
Se*retar# to file his personal affidavit as to )hether an# attempt had
ever been made to find out the truth in the said allegations0 the %hief
Se*retar# filed a defe*tive affidavit )hi*h does not refle*t an# light on
the issue )hatsoever.
1/V4 Chen the en+uir# )as entrusted b# the State ;overnment
dire*tl# to a parti*ular poli*e offi*er and the offi*er submitted the
report0 but before rea*hing the ;overnment0 respondent no.! dire*ted
that an 6/R be lodged against Umesh Kumar0 appellant and an
investigation be *ondu*ted. ?he report )as sent to the State
;overnment subse+uent thereto0 and even on that report the State
1A
Page 14
;overnment had never ta9en an# de*ision )hatsoever0 and in the
mean)hile the *harge sheet )as filed.
1V4 ?he *harge sheet )as filed under various provisions of the /P%
and some of them are e>*lusivel# triable b# the %ourt of Sessions and
not b# the magistrate. ?here are no *ommittal pro*eedings till no) in
the *ase. ?herefore0 the stage of framing the *harges or *onsidering an
appli*ation for dis*harge has not #et arrived.
1V/4 Shri ?. Sunil Redd# had not dis*losed the name of Umesh
Kumar0 appellant in his first statement. $o)ever0 subse+uentl# )hen
he )as in poli*e *ustod# and his statement )as re*orded a se*ond
time he revealed his name. $e )as also granted pardon and made an
approver b# the order of the trial *ourt and the said order has been set
aside b# the $igh %ourt at the behest of Umesh Kumar as referred to
hereinabove.
1V//4 Various other *ases regarding the en+uir# against respondent
no.! b# the %B/ or an independent agen*#0 are reported to be pending
before the $igh %ourt0 and it is pointed out that the learned Single
@udge has allo)ed the said )rit petition0 but the :ivision Ben*h had
sta#ed the operation of the said order at the behest of respondent &o.!.
?he learned Additional Advo*ate ;eneral at the dire*tion of the $igh
1
Page 15
%ourt had pla*ed a large number of sale deeds in respe*t of land
purported to have been pur*hased b# respondent &o.!3s )ife and her
sister Smt. S. &alini bet)een 1((. and !"",0 either in her name or her
relatives or ;eneral Po)er of Attorne# holders.
1V///4 ?he $igh %ourt partl# +uashed the *harge sheet observing that
the offen*e under Se*tion -. /P% is not made out.
C($) (0(i,$t U')$h 1%'(" 2 (**)--(,t 3
11. Allegations against an# person if found to be false or made
forging some one else signature ma# affe*t his reputation. Reputation
is a sort of right to enjo# the good opinion of others and it is a
personal right and an en+uir# to reputation is a personal injur#. ?hus0
s*andal and defamation are injurious to reputation. Reputation has
been defined in di*tionar# as Hto have a good nameF the *redit0 honor0
or *hara*ter )hi*h is derived from a favourable publi* opinion or
esteem and *hara*ter b# reportI. Personal rights of a human being
in*lude the right of reputation. A good reputation is an element of
personal se*urit# and is prote*ted b# the %onstitution e+uall# )ith the
right to the enjo#ment of life0 libert# and propert#. ?herefore0 it has
been held to be a ne*essar# element in regard to right to life of a
*itiJen under Arti*le !1 of the %onstitution. /nternational %ovenant on
1,
Page 16
%ivil and Politi*al Rights 1(-- re*ognises the right to have opinions
and the right of freedom of e>pression under Arti*le 1( is $%&4)5t to
th) "i0ht of ")*%t(tio, of oth)"$. Reputation is H,ot o,-. ( $(-t of
-if) but the purest treasure and the most pre*ious perfume of life.I
1Vide7 S't. 1i"(, B)/i 6 Ji,/)" Si,0h +. Th) Co''itt)) of
I,7%i". 6 A,".0 A/R 1(.( S% '1F Bo("/ of T"%$t))$ of th) Po"t
of Bo'&(. +. Di-i*8%'(" R(0h(+),/"(,(th N(/8(",i 6 O"$.#
A/R 1(.A S% 1"(F Ni-0i"i$ B(" A$$o5i(tio, +. T1 M(h(-i,0(' 6
A,".0 A/R 1((. S% A(.F D". M)h'oo/ N(..(" A9(' +. St(t) of
Ch(tti$0("h 6 O"$.0 A/R !"1! S% !,'AF :i$h;(,(th Sit("('
A0"(;(- +. S(% S("-( :i$h;(,(th A0"(;(-0 A/R !"1! S% ,.-F and
1i$ho") S('"it) +. St(t) of U.P. 6 O"$.0 1!"1A4 ! S%% A(.4.
1!. /n vie) thereof0 if an# person has forged in a letter under the
name of the Samithi and forged the signature of Shri 8.A. Khan0
8.P.0 the matter being of grave nature re+uires investigation and0 in
vie) of above0 )e *annot find fault )ith the a*tion initiated against
Umesh Kumar0 appellant. Bn*e *riminal la) is put in motion and after
investigation the *harge sheet is filed0 it re+uires s*rutin# in the *ourt
of la). $o)ever0 before the *harges *ould be framed0 Umesh Kumar0
appellant0 approa*hed the $igh %ourt under Se*tion .! %r.P.%. for
1-
Page 17
+uashing of the *harge sheet. ?he s*ope of Se*tion .! %r.P.%. is
)ell defined and inherent po)ers *ould be e>er*ised b# the $igh
%ourt to give effe*t to an order under the %r.P.%.F to prevent abuse of
the pro*ess of *ourtF and to other)ise se*ure the ends of justi*e. ?his
e>traordinar# po)er is to be e>er*ised ex debito justitiae. $o)ever0 in
e>er*ise of su*h po)ers0 it is not permissible for the $igh %ourt to
appre*iate the eviden*e as it *an onl# evaluate material do*uments on
re*ord to the e>tent of its prima facie satisfa*tion about the e>isten*e
of suffi*ient ground for pro*eedings against the a**used and the *ourt
*annot loo9 into materials0 the a**eptabilit# of )hi*h is essentiall# a
matter for trial. An# do*ument filed along)ith the petition labelled as
eviden*e )ithout being tested and proved0 *annot be e>amined. Ea)
does not prohibit entertaining the petition under Se*tion .! %r.P.%.
for +uashing the *harge sheet even before the *harges are framed or
before the appli*ation of dis*harge is filed or even during its penden*#
of su*h appli*ation before the *ourt *on*erned. ?he $igh %ourt
*annot reje*t the appli*ation merel# on the ground that the a**used
*an argue legal and fa*tual issues at the time of the framing of the
*harge. $o)ever0 the inherent po)er of the *ourt should not be
1'
Page 18
e>er*ised to stifle the legitimate prose*ution but *an be e>er*ised to
save the a**used to undergo the agon# of a *riminal trial.
1Vide7 P)*$i Foo/ Lt/. 6 A,". +. S*)5i(- J%/i5i(- M(0i$t"(t) 6
O"$.0 A/R 1((. S% 1!.F A$ho8 Ch(t%"+)/i 6 O"$. +. Shit%-h
Ch(,5h(,i 6 A,". A/R 1((. S% !'(-F !. S(0(" S%"i 6 A,". +.
St(t) of U.P. 6 O"$.0 A/R !""" S% ',F and P(/(- :),8(t( R('(
R)//. K Ramu +. 1o++%"i S(t.(,("(.(,( R)//. 6 O"$.0 1!"114
1! S%% A'4
1A. /n R(4i+ Th(*(" + M(/(, L(- 1(*oo"0 !"1A 1A4 S%% AA"0
this %ourt )hile dealing )ith the issue held as follo)s7
Based on the factors canvassed in the foregoing
paragraphs, we would delineate the following steps to
determine the veracity of a prayer for quashing, raised
by an accused by invoking the power vested in the High
Court under ection !"# of the Code of Criminal
$rocedure%
&i' tep one, whether the material relied upon by the
accused is sound, reasonable, and indubitable, i(e(, the
material is of sterling and impeccable quality)
&ii' tep two, whether the material relied upon by the
accused, would rule out the assertions contained in the
charges levelled against the accused, i(e(, the material is
sufficient to reject and overrule the factual assertions
contained in the complaint, i(e(, the material is such, as
would persuade a reasonable person to dismiss and
condemn the factual basis of the accusations as false(
1.
Page 19
&iii' tep three, whether the material relied upon by the
accused, has not been refuted by the
prosecution*complainant+ and*or the material is such,
that it cannot be justifiably refuted by the
prosecution*complainant)
&iv' tep four, whether proceeding with the trial would
result in an abuse of process of the court, and would not
serve the ends of justice),
1. /n St(t) of Bih(" +. P.P. Sh("'( 6 A,".0 A/R 1((1 S% 1!-"0
this %ourt dealt )ith an issue of )hether an appli*ation under Se*tion
.! %r.P.%. for +uashing the *harge sheet should be entertained
before *ogniJan*e is ta9en b# a *riminal *ourt and held as under75
-uashing the charge.sheet even before cogni/ance is
taken by a criminal Court amounts to killing a still born
child( 0ill the criminal Court takes cogni/ance of the
offence there is no criminal proceedings pending( 1 am
not allowing the appeals on the ground alternative
remedies provided by the Code as a bar( 1t may be
relevant in an appropriate case( 2y view is that
entertaining the writ petitions against charge.sheet and
considering the matter on merit on the guise of prima
facie evidence to stand on accused for trial amounts to
pre-trial of a criminal trial3( 1t is not to suggest that
under no circumstances a writ petition should be
entertained3(( 0he charge.sheet and the evidence placed
in support thereof form the base to take or refuse to take
cogni/ance by the competent Court( 1t is not the case that
no offence has been made out in the chargesheets and
the 4irst 1nformation 5eport(,
1<mphasis added4
1(
Page 20
1,. ?he issue of malafides looses its signifi*an*e if there is a
substan*e in the allegation made in *omplaint moved )ith mali*e.
/n Sh)o N(,/(, P($;(, +. St(t) of Bih(" 6 O"$.0 A/R 1(.'
S% .''0 this %ourt held as under7
1t is a well.established proposition of law that a
criminal prosecution, if otherwise justifiable and based
upon adequate evidence does not become vitiated on
account of mala fides or political vendetta of the first
informant or complainant(,
1-. /n P("8($h Si,0h B(/(- +. St(t) of P%,4(& 6 O"$.0 A/R !""'
S% 1!'0 this %ourt held as under7
0he ultimate test, therefore, is whether the allegations
have any substance( 6n investigation should not be shut
out at the threshold because a political opponent or a
person with political difference raises an allegation of
commission of offence( 0herefore, the plea of mala fides
as raised cannot be maintained(,
1'. /n State of A.P. +. !o-o5o,/( Li,0( S;('. 6 A,".# A/R
!"" S% A(-'0 this %ourt held as under7
1t is the material collected during the investigation and
evidence led in court which decides the fate of the
accused person( 0he allegations of malafides against the
informant are of no consequence and cannot by
themselves be the basis for quashing the proceeding(,
1See also7 1. 1("%,(8("(, +. St(t) of 1)"(-(# 1!""'4 1 S%% ,(4.
!"
Page 21
1.. ?hus0 in vie) of the above0 it be*omes evident that in *ase there
is some substan*e in the allegations and material e>ists to substantiate
the *ompli*it# of the appli*ant0 the *ase is to be e>amined in its full
*onspe*tus and the pro*eedings should not be +uashed onl# on the
ground that the same had been initiated )ith mala fides to )rea9
vengean*e or to a*hieve an ulterior goal.
1(. S*heme for in+uir#Ltrial provided under the %r.P.%. is +uite
*lear. After investigation0 report under Se*tion 1'A1!4 %r.P.%. is to be
submitted before the *ompetent *ourt i.e. magistrate having
jurisdi*tion in the matter and the magistrate ma# ta9e *ogniJan*e
under Se*tion 1(" %r.P.%. $o)ever0 it is still open to the magistrate to
dire*t further investigation under the provisions of Se*tion 1'A1.4
%r.P.%. /f the *ase is triable b# the %ourt of Sessions0 the magistrate
)ould *ommit the *ase to the said *ourt under Se*tion !"( %r.P.%. /t
is for the *ourt to e>amine )hether there is suffi*ient material
*olle*ted during investigation and filed along)ith the *harge sheet
that a prima facie vie) *an be ta9en to pro*eed against the a**used
and in vie) thereof0 frame *harges under Se*tion !!. %r.P.%. At this
stage the remed# available to the a**used is to as9 for dis*harge under
!1
Page 22
Se*tion !!' %r.P.%. /n *ase *harges are framed the a**used has to
fa*e the trial0 *harges *an be addedLaltered at an# stage of the trial0
before the pronoun*ement of the judgment to suit the eviden*e
addu*ed before the *ourt0 under the provisions of Se*tion !1- %r.P.%.
?he onl# legal re+uirement is that a )itness has to be re*alled as
provided under Se*tion !1' %r.P.%. )hen a *harge is altered or added
b# the *ourt.
!". /n the instant *ase0 *harge sheet had been filed and the
*ogniJan*e had been ta9en b# the magistrate *on*ernedF the
*ommittal pro*eedings have not #et ta9en pla*eF and some of the
offen*es attra*ted in this *ase are e>*lusivel# triable b# the Sessions
%ourt. Umesh Kumar0 appellant approa*hed the $igh %ourt under
Se*tion .! %r.P.%. and the *harge sheet has been partl# +uashed
observing that the provisions of Se*tion -. /P% are not attra*ted.
!1. ?he +uestion does arise as to )hether su*h an order attained
finalit# and in *ase the eviden*e is addu*ed before the *ourt
*on*erned0 )hether the trial *ourt *an still hold that the appli*ant is
re+uired to be tried for the offen*e under Se*tion -. /.P.%. and
!!
Page 23
further )hether the trial )ould be *ompetent on the said *harge in
e>er*ise of its po)er under Se*tion !1- %r.P.%.G
!!. /n St(t) of M(h("($ht"( +. S(-'(, S(-i' 1h(,# A/R !""
S% 11.(0 this %ourt depre*iated the pra*ti*e of entertaining the
petition under Se*tion .! %r.P.%. at a pre5mature stage of the
pro*eedings observing as under7
3(0he arguments regarding the framing of a proper
charge are best left to be decided by the trial court at an
appropriate stage of the trial. 7therwise as observed in
this case, proceedings get protracted by the intervention
of the superior courts3(0he High Court by the impugned
order had allowed the said application quashing the
charge under ection 89! 1$C against the respondent
herein while it maintained the other charges and direct
the 2agistrate:s court to frame the de novo charges33
;e are of the opinion that though it is open to a High
Court entertaining a petition under ection !"# of the
Code to quash charges framed by the trial Court, same
cannot be done by weighing the correctness or
sufficiency of evidence( 1n a case praying for quashing of
the charge, the principle to be adopted by the High Court
should be that if the entire evidence produced by the
prosecution is to be believed, would it constitute an
offence or not( 0he truthfulness, the sufficiency and
acceptability of the material produced at the time of
framing of charge can be done only at the stage of trial(
33we think the High Court was not justified in this
case in giving a finding as to the non.existence of
material to frame a charge for an offence punishable
under ection 89!, $art 11, 1$C, therefore so far as the
finding given by the High Court is concerned, we are
satisfied that it is too premature a finding and ought
!A
Page 24
not to have been given at this stage .3(,( &<mphasis
added'
?he %ourt set aside the order of the $igh %ourt and left it open
to the trial *ourt to modif# the *harges in a**ordan*e )ith the
eviden*e addu*ed before it.
1See also7 Soh(, L(- 6 O"$. +. St(t) of R(4($th(,0 A/R 1((" S%
!1,.4
!A. A %onstitution Ben*h of this %ourt reiterated a similar vie) in
CBI 6 O"$. +. 1)$h%& M(hi,/"( )t5.# A/R !"11 S% !"A'
observing that )hen the *harges are framed0 the *ourt ma9es an
endorsement ti-- th(t $t(0). So *harges are framed on the materials
produ*ed b# the prose*ution for framing the *harges H(t th(t $t(0)I.
Su*h indi*ation is ne*essar# other)ise the provisions *ontained in
Se*tions !1-0 A!A0 A.-0 A('0 A((0 "1 et*. %r.P.%.0 )ould be rendered
nugator# and denuded a *ompetent *ourt of the po)ers under those
provisions. ?he *ourt *annot be restrained from e>er*ising its po)ers
either under Se*tion A!A or Se*tion !1- %r.P.%.
!. ?he $igh %ourt )as approa*hed b# Umesh Kumar0 appellant
under se*tion .! %r.P.%. at a premature stage. At the said stage the
$igh %ourt *ould e>amine the *hargesheet0 *ase diar# and other
!
Page 25
material in the *hargesheet )hi*h b# no means *an be termed as
substantive eviden*e. 1Vide3 Lo8 R(' + Nih(- Si,0h 6 O"$. A/R
!""- S% 1.(!4.
!,. ?hus0 in vie) of above0 the order of the $igh %ourt impugned
before us *annot be termed as a final de*ision. ?he order is subje*t to
further order )hi*h *ould be passed b# the trial *ourt under Se*tion
!1- %r.P.%.0 on the basis of the eviden*e to be led during trial. /f the
impugned order is dubbed as having attained finalit#0 the provisions
of Se*tion !1- %r.P.%. )ould render otioseLnugator#. ?hus0 the same
is to be read that the said order had been passed ta9ing into
*onsideration the material )hi*h )as available H(t th(t $t(0)I and it
is still open to the trial *ourt to add or alter the *harges a**ording to
the eviden*e produ*ed before it.
Co'*-(i,t (0(i,$t R)$*o,/),t No.23
!-. ?he *omplaint )as initiall# made in respe*t of a*+uiring huge
immovable properties b# respondent &o. ! in his name and in the
name of his )ife0 and the %entral ;overnment had as9ed the State
;overnment to *ondu*t an in+uir# into the said allegations. ?he
*omplaint ma# be forged or fabri*ated0 but it is nobod#3s *ase that the
!,
Page 26
*opies of sale deeds anne>ed along)ith the said *omplaint )ere not
genuine. Chile issuing dire*tion to hold in+uir#Linvestigation as to
)ho had fabri*ated the said *omplaint and forged the signatures of
Shri 8.A. Khan0 8.P.0 the allegations of a*+uiring properties b# the
respondent &o.! have been abandoned and unattended altogether.
<ven though the *omplaint )as bogus0 ho)ever0 the sale deeds
anne>ed along)ith the same though illegall# *olle*ted b# someone0
have not been found to be fabri*ated do*uments.
!'. /t is a settled legal proposition that even if a do*ument is
pro*ured b# improper or illegal means0 there is no bar to its
admissibilit# if it is relevant and its genuineness is proved. /f the
eviden*e is admissible0 it does not matter ho) it has been obtained.
$o)ever0 as a matter of *aution0 the *ourt in e>er*ise of its dis*retion
ma# disallo) *ertain eviden*e in a *riminal *ase if the stri*t rules of
admissibilit# )ould operate unfairl# against the a**used. 8ore so0 the
*ourt must *on*lude that it is genuine and free from tampering or
mutilation. ?his *ourt repelled the *ontention that obtaining eviden*e
illegall# b# using tape re*ordings or photographs offend Arti*les
!"1A4 and !1 of the %onstitution of /ndia as a*+uiring the eviden*e b#
su*h methods )as not the pro*edure established b# la). 1Vide7
!-
Page 27
<%$%f(--i E$'(i- N(0")) +. Th) St(t) of M(h("($ht"(# A/R 1(-.
S% 1'F M(0"(4 P(to/i( +. R.1. Bi"-( 6 O"$.0 1('" 1!4 S%% ...F
R.M. M(-8(,i +. St(t) of M(h("($ht"(# A/R 1('A S% 1,'F Poo"(,
M(- +. Di")5to" of I,$*)5tio,# I,5o')=T(># N); D)-hi 6 O"$.0
A/R 1(' S% A.F and St(t) ?NCT of D)-hi@ +. N(+4ot S(,/h% alias
Afsan ;uru0 1!"",4 11 S%% -""4.
!.. /n su*h a fa*t5situation if illegall# *olle*ted material *an be
e>amined b# the *ourt of la)0 )e fail to understand ho) the State
;overnment *ould not e>amine the *ontents of the *omplaint on the
basis of the anne>ed *opies of sale deeds et*.
:uring the arguments of this *ase0 our *ons*ious )as sho*9ed
as to the manner the State of Andhra Pradesh has misdire*ted itself
and abandoned the most relevant issue i.e. *omplaint against Shri V.
:inesh Redd# = respondent no.! and *on*entrated e>*lusivel# against
Umesh Kumar0 appellant. ?hus0 vide order dated !.'.!"1A0 )e have
as9ed the %hief Se*retar# of the State of Andhra Pradesh to dis*lose
as to )hether an# preliminar#Ldis*iplinar# in+uir# has ever been
*ondu*ted b# the State in respe*t of the alleged sale deeds in favour of
the spouse or her general po)er of attorne# holders or relatives of
respondent &o. !.
!'
Page 28
!(. /n repl# to our order dated !.'.!"1A0 the %hief Se*retar# has
filed an undated affidavit though attested b# a @oint Se*retar# to ;ovt.
of A.P.0 and has given numerous e>planations in respe*t of the alleged
pseudon#mous petition filed )ith a fi*titious name of the Samithi and
)ith the forged signature of Shri 8.A. Khan0 8.P. ?he %hief
Se*retar# has ta9en the plea that the ;overnment of A.P. *ould not
investigate an en+uir# about the disproportionate assets of the
respondent no.! in vie) of the fa*t that the $igh %ourt of Andhra
Pradesh vide order dated !.,.!"1A sta#ed the operation of the learned
Single @udge3s order to *ondu*t an en+uir# into the allegations. ?he
%hief Se*retar# to the ;ovt. of Andhra Pradesh has not revealed
)hether a preliminar# en+uir# or a domesti* en+uir# had ever been
*ondu*ted till !.,.!"1A )hen the $igh %ourt passed the restraint
order. ?he *omplaint )as filed on !!..!"11 and more than t)o #ears
had elapsed )hen the $igh %ourt passed the order. &o e>planation
has been furnished as to )h# for t)o #ears the en+uir# *ould not be
held in this regard.
A". Attestation of the undated affidavit is in utter disregard to the
provisions of Se*tion 1A( of the %ode of %ivil Pro*edure0 1("..
!.
Page 29
1hereinafter referred to as the M%P%34. ?he Supreme %ourt Rules 1(--
under Brder N/0 Rule ' also re+uire adheren*e to the provisions of
Se*tion 1A( %P%. $en*e0 his repl# is not )orth ta9ing on re*ord and
being undated0 renders the same to be a pie*e of )aste paper.
?he definition of 2affidavit3 in Se*tion A1A4 of the ;eneral
%lauses A*t 1.(' provides that it Hshall in*lude affirmation and
de*laration in the *ase of persons b# la) allo)ed to affirm or de*lare
instead of s)earingI. ?hus0 it is an essential *hara*teristi* of an
affidavit that it should be made on oath or affirmation before a person
having authorit# to administer the oath or affirmation0 and thus0 dut#
to state on oath on the part of the deponent is sa*rosan*t. Same
remains the position in respe*t of administration of oath as re+uired
under the Baths A*t 1.'A.
1See7 1"i$h(, Ch(,/)" N(.(" +. Th) Ch(i"'(,# C),t"(- T"(5to"
O"0(,i$(tio, 6 O"$.0 A/R 1(-! S% -"!F Chhot(, P"($(/ Si,0h 6
O"$. +. H("i D%$(/h 6 O"$.0 A/R 1('' S% "'F and M.
:))"(&h(/"( R(o +. T)8 Ch(,/0 A/R 1(., S% !.4.
A1. /n vie) of the above0 )e have no hesitation to hold that the
%hief Se*retar# had the auda*it# not to ensure the *omplian*e of the
order of this *ourt dated !.'.!"1A0 and )e have no )ords to e>press
!(
Page 30
our anguish and *ondemn the attitude adopted b# the %hief Se*retar#.
8ore so0 holding su*h a responsible post in the State0 he must have
some sense of responsibilit# and should have been a)are of )hat are
the minimum re+uirements of la)0 and even if he did not 9no) he
*ould have *onsulted an# la) offi*er of the State before filing the
undated affidavit.
A!. Be that as it ma#0 fa*ts of the *ase )arranted some en+uir# in
respe*t of the allegations of a*+uiring huge properties b# Shri V.
:inesh Redd# = respondent no.!. ?he State too9 the *ourage to flout
the order of the %entral ;overnment and did not loo9 into the *ontents
of the *omplaint and misdire*ted the en+uir# against Umesh Kumar0
appellant. /n su*h a fa*t5situation0 this *ourt )ould not fail in its dut#
to dire*t the en+uir# in those allegations.
AA. /n vie) of the above0 the appeals are disposed of dire*ting the
%B/ to investigate the matter against Shri V. :inesh Redd# =
respondent no. ! on the allegations of a*+uiring the disproportionate
assets. $o)ever0 this should not be *onsidered as e>pressing an#
opinion upon the merits of the *ase. ?he %hief Se*retar# to the
A"
Page 31
;overnment of Andhra Pradesh is dire*ted to ma9e the *opies of the
said sale deeds available to the %B/ for investigation.
A. %ase of Umesh Kumar = appellant )ould pro*eed before the
?rial %ourt as e>plained hereinabove.
A *op# of the judgment and order be sent to the :ire*tor0 %B/0
forth)ith. ?he %B/ shall submit the Status Report to this %ourt )ithin
four months.
AA..AAAA..AAAAJ.
?D". B.S. CHAUHAN@
AAA..AAAAA..AAJ.
?S.A. BOBDE@
N); D)-hi#
S)*t)'&)" B# 2013

A1