Supreme Court of India
UMESH KUMARversusSTATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH & ANR
- Citation
- 2013 INSC 590
- Decided
- 6 September 2013
- Disposal
- Disposed off
- Bench
- B S CHAUHAN
Holding
The Supreme Court held that the High Court could not quash the charge sheet on the basis of alleged malafides or pre‑empt trial evidence, that reputation is protected under Article 21, that evidence obtained illegally is admissible if genuine, and that the High Court's order was not final, directing the trial court to continue the trial and the CBI to investigate respondent No.2.
Summary
The case arose from a complaint alleging that a senior police officer, V. Dinesh Reddy, had amassed disproportionate assets, which was later claimed to be forged and signed by a fictitious MP. An investigation led to a charge sheet against Umesh Kumar under IPC sections 468, 471, 120‑B and 201, and the appellant sought quashing of the charge sheet under Section 482 of the CrPC. The Supreme Court examined whether reputation is a component of the right to life under Article 21, the scope of the High Court's inherent power under Section 482, and whether alleged malafides could justify quashing when substantive material exists. It held that reputation is a personal right protected by Article 21, that Section 482 may be invoked before framing charges but the High Court cannot pre‑empt trial evidence, and that malafides are irrelevant if the allegations have substance. The Court also ruled that evidence obtained by illegal means is admissible if genuine, that an undated affidavit violates Section 139 CPC, and that the High Court's order was not final, directing the trial court to proceed and the CBI to investigate the allegations against respondent No.2.
Issues considered
- The extent to which reputation forms part of the right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution
- The scope and limitations of the inherent power of the High Court under Section 482 CrPC to quash a charge sheet before charges are framed
- Whether alleged malafides can be a ground to quash criminal proceedings when there is substantive material
- The permissibility of adding or altering charges under Section 216 CrPC after a charge sheet is filed
- The admissibility of evidence obtained by illegal or improper means
- The validity of an undated affidavit under Section 139 CPC and Supreme Court Rules
- Whether the High Court's partial quashing order attained finality
Legislation cited
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908s. 139
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973s. 173(2), s. 173(8), s. 190, s. 209, s. 216, s. 217, s. 227, s. 228, s. 306, s. 482
- Constitution of Indias. Art.19, s. Art.21
- General Clauses Act, 1897s. 3(3)
- Indian Oaths Act, 1873
- Indian Penal Code, 1860s. 120-B, s. 201, s. 468, s. 471
- International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, 1966
- Supreme Court Rules, 1966s. Order XI, Rule 7
Subjects
Right to lifeReputationArticle 21Section 482 CrPCQuashing charge sheetMalafidesCriminal procedureEvidence admissibilityIllegal evidenceSection 139 CPCUndated affidavitCBI investigationDisproportionate assetsForgeryApproverCharge alteration
Judgment
[2013] 14 S.C.R. 213
UMESH KUMAR A
v.
STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH & ANR
(Criminal Appeal No. 1305 of 2013)
SEPTEMBER 6, 2013
B
[DR. S.S. CHAUHAN AND S.A. BOBDE, JJ.]
Constitution of India, 1950 - Art.21 - Right to life - Right
to reputation - Held: Reputation is a sort of right to enjoy the
good opinion of others and it is a personal right and an C
enquiry to reputation is a personal injury - Personal rights of
a human being include the right of reputation - A good
reputation is an element of personal security and is protected
by the Constitution equally with the right to enjoyment of life,
liberty and property. D
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - s.482 - Charge
sheet - Quashing of - Held: Law does not prohibit
entertaining the petition uls.482 CrPC for quashing the charge
sheet even before the charges are framed or before the
application of discharge is filed or even during pendency of E
such application before the court concerned - High Court
cannot reject the application merely on the ground that the
accused can argue legal and factual issues at the time of the
framing of the charges - However, the inherent p6wer of the
Court should not be exercised to stifle the legitimate F
prosecution but can be exercised to save the accused to
undergo the agony of a criminal trial.
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - s.482 - Quashing
of charges - Issue of malafides - Significance of - Held: In G
case there is some substance in the allegations and material
exists to substantiate the complicity of the applicant, the case
is to be examined in its full conspectus and the proceedings
should not be quashed only on the ground that the same had
213 H
214 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 14 S.C R.
A been initiated with ma/a fides to wreak vengeance or to
achieve an ulterior goal.
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - ss.227 and 228 -
Framing of charges - Addition/alteration of charge - Scope
8 - Held: Charges can be added/altered at any stage of the trial,
before the pronouncement of the judgment to suit the
evidence adduced before the court, under the provisions of
s.216 CrPC - The only legal requirement is that a witness
has to be recalled as provided uls.217 CrPC when a charge
C is altered or added by the court- In the instant case, the High
Court was approached by the appellant uls.482 CrPC at a
premature stage - At the said stage the High Court could
examine the chargesheet, case diary and other material in
the chargesheet which by no means can be termed as
substantive evidence - Thus, order of High Court could not
D be termed as a final decision - The order was subject to
further order which could be passed by the trial court uls.216
CrPC, on the basis of the evidence to be led during trial -
The impugned order of the High Court had been passed
taking into consideration the material which was available "at
E that stage" and it was still open to the trial court to add or alter .
the charges according to the evidence produced before i{
Evidence - Appreciation of - Admissibility of documents
procured by improper or illegal means - Held: Even if a
F document is procured by improper or illegal means, there is
no bar to its admissibility if it is relevant and its genuineness
is proved - If the evidence is admissible, it does not matter
how it has been obtained - However, as a matter of caution,
the court in exercise of its discretion may disallow certain
G evidence in a criminal case if the strict rules of admissibility
would operate unfairly against the accused - More so, the
court must conclude that it is genuine and free from
tampering or mutilation.
Affidavit - Undated affidavit - Attestation of - Held: Is in
H utter disregard to the provisions of s. 139 CPC - Code of Civil
UMESH KUMAR v. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH 215
Procedure, 1908 - s.139 - Supreme Court Rules 1966 - A
Or.XI, r.7- General Clauses Act 1897- s.3(3).
Affidavit - Essential characteristic of - Held: It should be
made on oath or affirmation before a person having authority
to administer the oath or affirmation - Duty to state on oath
8
on part of the deponent is sacrosanct - Oaths Act 1873.
The Central Government received a letter purportedly
written by 'M', a Member of Parliament, enclosing a
representation/complaint of All India Banjara Seva
Samithi asking for enquiry against respondent no.2, the C
then DG (Vigilance and Enforcement) Department
alleging that he had amassed disproportionate assets in
the name of his wife and her power of attorney holders.
The letter was forwarded to the Chief Secretary, Govt. of
A.P. Subsequently, 'M' sent a letter to Govt. of A.P, D
alleging that the aforesaid said letter sent by the Central
Government to the Chief Secretary, A.P. had not been
authored by him.
Respondent no.2 directed registration of FIR and that E
an investigation be conducted by CID. During course of
investigation, 'S' was arrested. His statement was
recorded under Section 161 CrPC and then he was
remanded to judicial custody. During judicial custody his
statement was recorded a second time under Section 161
CrPC wherein he named the appellant as an accused. On F
being subsequently enlarged on bail, 'S' made
application under Section 306 CrPC to become an
approver. The Investigating Officer filed statement in the
court that unless 'S' was granted pardon, there would be
no evidence against the appellant. G
The trial court accepted the application of 'S' and
granted him pardon and made him an approver.
However, the .said order was quashed by the High Court
in Writ Petition filed by the appellant. After completion of H
216 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 14 S.C.R.
A investigation, charge sheet was filed naming the
appellant showing that offences punishable under
Sections 468, 471, 120-8 and 201 IPC had been
committed. Aggrieved, the appellant approached the High
C:ourt under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing the charge
B sheet. The High Court quashed the charge sheet only in
part- it quashed the charge sheet in respect of the offence
under Section 468 IPC, but did not quash the charge
sheet in respect of offences punishable under Sections
•H1, 120-B and 201 IPC. Hence, the instant appeals by
c b<>th parties i.e. the accused and the State.
Disposing of the appeals, the Court
HELD:1. Allegations against any person if found to
be false or made forging some one else signature may
D affect his reputation. Reputation is a sort of right to enjoy
the! good opinion of others and it is a personal right and
an enquiry to reputation is a personal injury. Thus,
scandal and defamation are injurious to reputation.
Reputation has been defined in dictionary as "to have a
E go<>d name; the credit, honor, or character which is
derived from a favourable public opinion or esteem and
character by report". Personal rights of a human being
include the right of reputation. A good reputation is an
element of personal security and is protected by the
F Constitution equally with the right to the enjoyment of life,
liberty and property. Therefore, it has been held to be a
necEissary element in regard to right to life of a citizen
under Article 21 of the Constitution. International
Covenant on Civil and Political Rights 1966 recognises
G the right to have opinions and the right of freedom of
expression under Article 19 is subject to the right of
reputation of others. Reputation is "not only a salt of life
but the purest treasure and the most precious perfume
of life." [Para 11) (234-A-E]
H Smt. Kiran Bedi & Jinder Singh v. The Committee of
UMESH KUMAR v. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH 217
Inquiry & Anr., AIR 1989 SC 714; Board of Trustees of the A
Port of Bombay v. Difipkumar Raghavendranath Nadkami &
Ors., AIR 1983 SC 109; Nilgiris Bar Association v. TK
Mahalingam & Anr., AIR 1998 SC 398; Dr. Mehmood Nayyar
Azam v. State of Chattisgarh & Ors., AIR 2012 SC 2573;
Vishwanath Sitaram Agrawal v. Sau Sar/a Vishwanath B
Agrawal, AIR 2012 SC 586 and Kishore Samrite v. State of
U.P. & Ors., (2013) 2 sec 398 - relied on.
2. If any person has forged in a letter under the name
of the Samithi and forged the signature of 'M', the matter
being of grave nature requires investigation and, one C
cannot find fault with the action initiated against the
appellant. [Para 12] [234-G]
3. Once crimin<!I law is put in motion and after
investigation the charge sheet is filed, it requires scrutiny o
in the court of law. However, before the charges could
be framed, the appellant approached the High Court
under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of the charge
sheet. The scope of Section 482 Cr.P.C. is well defined
and inherent powers could be exercised by the High E
Court to give effect to an order under the Cr.P.C.; to
prevent abuse of the process of court; and to otherwise
secure the ends of justice. This extraordinary power is
to be exercised ex debito justitiae. However, in exercise
of such powers, it is not permissible for the High Court
F
to appreciate the evidence as it can only evaluate material
documents on record to the extent of its prima facie
satisfaction about the existence of sufficient ground for
proceedings against the accused and the court cannot
look into materials, the acceptability of which is
essentially a matter for trial. Any document filed alongwith G
the petition labelled as evidence without being tested and
proved, cannot be examined. Law does not prohibit
entertaining the petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for
quashing the charge sheet even before the charges are
framed or before the application of discharge is filed or H
'.218 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 14 S.C.R.
A even during its pendency of such application before the
c:ourt concerned. The High Court cannot reject the
application merely on the ground that the accused can
argue legal and factual issues at the time of the framing
c1f the charge. However, the inherent power of the court
B should not be exercised to stifle the legitimate
prosecution but can be exercised to save the accused to
undergo the agony of a criminal trial. [Para 12) [234-H;
235-A-E]
C Pepsi Food Ltd. & Anr. v. Special Judicial Magistrate &
Ors., AIR 1998 SC 128; Ashok Chaturvedi & Ors. v. Shitulh
Chanchani & Anr. AIR 1998 SC 2796; G. Sagar Suri & Anr.
v. St:Jte of U.P. & Ors., AIR 2000 SG-154; and Padal Venkata
R'ama Reddy @ Ramu v. Kovvuri Satyanarayana Reddy &
Ors., (2011) 12 SCC 437; Rajiv Thapar v Madan Lal Kapoor,
D 2013 (3) SCC 330 and State of Bihar v. P.P. Sharma & Anr.,
AIR 1991 SC 1260 - relied on.
4. The issue of malafides looses its significance if
there is a substance in the allegation made in complaint
E moved with malice. In case there is some substance in
the allegations and material exists to substantiate the
cc1mplicity of the applicant, the case is to be examined in
its full conspectus and the proceedings should not be
quashed only on the ground that the same had been
F initiated with mala tides to wreak vengeance or to achieve
an ulterior goal. [Paras 15, 18) [237-D; 238-C-D)
. .
Sheo Nandan Paswan v. State of Bihar & Ors., AIR 1987
SC 877; Parkash Singh Badal v. State of Punjab & Ors., AIR
2007 SC 1274; State of A.P. v. Goloconda Unga Swamy &
G Anr., AIR 2004 SC 3967 and K. Karunakaran v. State of
Kera/a, (2007) 1 sec 59 - relied on.
5. Scheme for inquiry/trial provided under the Cr.P.C.
is quite clear. After investigation, report under Section
H 173(2) Cr.P.C. is to be submitted before the competent
UMESH KUMAR v. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH 219
court i.e. magistrate having jurisdiction in the matter and A
the magistrate may take cognizance under Section 190
Cr.P.C. However, it is still open to the magistrate to direct
further investigation under the provisions of Section
173(8) Cr.P.C. If the case is triable by the Court of
Sessions, the magistrate would commit the case to the B
said court under Section 209 Cr.P.C. It is for the court to
examine whether there is sufficient material collected
during investigation and filed alongwith the charge sheet
that a prima facie view can be taken to proceed against
the accused and in view thereof, frame charges under c
Section 228 Cr.P.C. At this stage the remedy available to
the accused is to ask for discharge under Section 227
Cr.P.C. In case charges are framed the accused has to
face the trial, charges can be added/altered at any stage
of the trial, before the pronouncement of the judgment to
0
suit the evidence adduced before the court, under the
provisions of Section 216 Cr.P.C. The only legal
requirement is that a witness has to be recalled as
provided under Section 217 Cr.P.C. when a charge is
altered or added by the court. [Para 19] [238-D-H; 239-A]
E
6. In the instant case, the High Court was
approached by the appellant under section 482 Cr.P.C.
at a premature stage. At the said stage the High Court
could examine the chargesheet, case diary and other
material in the chargesheet which by no means can be F
termed as substantive e.vidence. Thus, in view of above,
the order of the High Court cannot be termed as a final
decision. The order is subject to further order which
could be passed by the trial court under Section 216
Cr.P.C., on the basis of the evidence to be led during trial. G
If the impugned order is dubbed as having attained
finality, the provisions of Section 216 Cr.P.C. would
render otiose/nugatory. Thus, the same is to be read that
the said order had been passed taking into consideration
the material which was available "at that stage" and it is H
2:w SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 14 S.C.R.
A still open to the trial court to add or alter the charges
according to the evidence produced before it. [Para 24
& 25) [240-H; 241-A-C)
State of Maharashtra v. Salman Salim Khan, AIR 2004
SC 1189; Sohan Lal & Ors. v. State of Rajasthan, AIR 1990
8
SC 2158; CBI & Ors. v. Keshub Mahindra etc., AIR 2011 SC
2037; Lok Ram v Nihal Singh & Ors. AIR 2006 SC 1892 -
reiied on.
7.1. The complaint was initially made in respect of
C acquiring huge immovable properties by respondent No.
2 in his name and in the name of his wife, and the Central
Gc1vernment had asked the State Government to conduct
an inquiry into the said allegations. The complaint may
be forged or fabricated, but it is nobody's case that the
o copies of sale deeds annexed alongwith the said
complaint were not genuine. While issuing direction to
hold inquiry/investigation as to who had fabricated the
saiid complaint and forged the signatures of 'M', the
all1egations of acquiring properties by the respondent
E No.2 have been abandoned and unattended altogether.
Even though the complaint was bogus, however, the sale
de1eds annexed alongwith the same though illegally
coHected by someone, have not been found to be
fabricated documents. [Para 26) [241-D-G]
F 7.2. It is a settled legal proposition that even if a
doc:ument is procured ·by improper or illegal means, there
is 1110 bar to its admissibility if it is relevant and its
genuineness is proved. If the evidence is admissible, it
does not matter how it has been obtained. However, as
G a matter of caution, the court in exercise of its discretion
may disallow certain evidence in a criminal case if the
striic:t rules of admissibility would operate unfairly against
the accused. More so, the court must conclude that it is
genuine and free from tampering or mutilation. [Para 27)
H [2411-H; 242-A-B]
UMESH KUMAR v. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH 221
I
Yusufath Esmail Nagree v. The State of Maharashtra, A
se
AIR 1968 I 147; Magraj Patodia v. R.K. Bir/a & Ors.,
,
1970
(2) SCC 888; R.M. Malkani v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1973
SC 157; Pooran Mal v. Director of Inspection, Income-Tax,
New Delhi & Ors., AIR 1974 SC 348; and State (NCTof Delhi)
v. Navjot Sandhu alias Afsan Guru, (2005) 11 SCC 600 - B
relied on~
8.1. If illegally collected material can be examined by
the court of law, one fails to understand how the State
Government could not examine the contents of the C
complaint on the basis of the annexed copies of sale
deeds etc. The State of Andhra Pradesh misdirected itself
and abandoned the most relevant issue i.e. complaint
against respondent no.2 and concentrated exclusively
against the appellant. The Chief Secretary of the State of
Andhra Pradesh was asked by this Court to tfisclose as D
to whether any preliminary/disciplinary inquiry has ever
been conducted by the State in respect of the alleged sale
deeds in favour of the spouse or her general power of
attorney holders or relatives of respondent No. 2. In reply,
the Chief Secretary filed an undated affidavit though E
attested by a Joint Secretary to Govt. of A.P., and has
given numerous explanations in respect of the alleged
pseudonymous petition filed with a fictitious name of the
Samithi and with the forged signature of 'M'. The Chief
Secretary has taken the plea that the Government of A.P. F
could not investigate an enquiry about the
disproportionate assets of the respondent no.2 in view
of the fact that the High Court of Andhra Pradesh vide
order dated 2.5.2013 stayed the operation of the Single
Judge's order to conduct an enquiry into the allegations. G
The Chief Secretary to the Govt. of Andhra Pradesh has
not revealed whether a preliminary enquiry or a domestic
enquiry had ever been conducted till 2.5.2013 when the
High Court passed the restraint order. The complaint was
filed on 22.4.2011 and more than two years had elapsed H
222 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 14 S.C.R.
A when the High Court passed the order. No explanation
has been furnished as to why for two years the enquiry
could not be held in this regard. [Para 28 and 29] (242-D-
H; 243-A-D]
B 8.2. Attestation of the undated affidavit is in utter
disregard to the provisions of Section 139 CPC. The
Supreme Court Rules 1966 under Order XI, Rule 7 also
require adherence to the provisions of Section 139 CPC.
Hence, his reply is not worth taking on record and being
undated, renders the same to be a piece of waste paper.
C The definition of 'affidavit' in Section 3(3) of the General
Clauses Act 1897 provides that it "shall include
affirmation and declaration in the case of persons by law
allowed to affirm or declare instead of swearing". Thus,
it is an essential characteristic of an affidavit that it should
D be made on oath or affirmation before a person having
authority to administer the oath or affirmation, and thus,
duty to state on oath on the part of the deponent is
sacrosanct. Same remains the position in respect of
administration of oath as required under the Oaths Act
E 1873. (Para 30] (243-0-G]
Krishan Chander Nayar v. The Chairman, Central Tractor
Organisation & Ors., AIR 1962 SC 602; Chhotan Prasad
Singh & Ors. v. Hari Dusadh & Ors., AIR 1977 SC 407; and
F M. Veerabhadra Rao v. Tek Chand, AIR 1985 SC 28 - relied
on.
9. The Chief Secretary had the audacity not to ensure
the compliance of the order of this court dated 24.7.2013,
and there are no words to express anguish and condemn
G the attitude adopted by the Chief Secretary. More so,
holding such a responsible post in the State, he must
have some sense of responsibility and should have been
aware of what are the minimum requirements of law, and
even if he did not know he could have c-onsulted any law
H officer of the State before filing the undated affidavit. The
UMESH KUMAR v. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH 223
facts of the case warranted some enquiry in respect of A
the allegations of acquiring huge properties by
respondent no.2. The State took the courage to flout the
order of the Central Government and did not look into the
contents of the complaint and misdirected the enquiry
against the appellant. In such a fact-situation, this court B
would not fail in its duty to direct the enquiry in those
allegations. [Paras 31, 32] [244-B-E]
10. The CBI is directed to investigate the matter
against respondent no. 2 on the allegations of acquiring C
the disproportionate assets. However, this should not be
considered as expressing any opinion upon the merits
of the case. The Chief Secretary to the Government of
Andhra Pradesh is directed to make the copies of the said
sale deeds available to the CBI for investigation. Case of
the appellant would proceed before the Trial Court. A copy D
of the judgment and order be sent to the Director, CBI,
forthwith. The CBI shall submit the Status Report to this
Court within four months. [Paras 33, 34] [244-E-H]
Case Law Reference: E
AIR 1989 SC 714 relied on Para 11
AIR 1983 SC 109 relied on Para 11
AIR 1998 SC 398 relied on Para 11
F
AIR 2012 SC 2573 relied on Para 11
AIR 2012 SC 586 relied on Para 11
(2013) 2 sec 398 relied on Para 11
G
AIR 1998 SC 128 relied on Para 12
AIR 1998 SC 2796 relied on Para 12
'
AIR 2000 SC 754 relied on Para 12
(2011) 12 sec 437 relied on Para 12 H
:224 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2013] 14 S.C.R.
A 2013 (3) sec 330 relied on Para 13
AIR 1991 SC 1260 relied on Para 14
AIR 1987 SC 877 relied on Para 15
AIR 2007 SC 1274 relied on Para 16
B
AIR 2004 SC 3967 relied on Para 17
c2001) 1 sec 59 relied on Para 17
AIR 2004 SC 1189 relied on Para 22
c AIR 1990 SC 2158 relied on Para 22
AIR 2011 SC 2037 relied on Para 23
AIR 2006 SC 1892 relied on Para 24
D AIR 1968 SC 147 relied on Para 27
1910 (2) sec 888 relied on Para 27
AIR 1973 SC 157 relied on Para 27
E AIR 1974 SC 348 relied on Para 27
(2005) 11 sec 600 relie~ on Para 27
AIR 1962 SC 602 relied on ·Para 30
AIR 1977 SC 407 relied on Para 30
F
AIR 1985 SC 28 relied on Para 30
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal
No. 1305 of 2013.
G From the Judgment & Order dated 11.04.2012 of the High
Court of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in CRLP No. 12791
of 201 ·1.
WITH
H Crl. A. No. 1304 of 2013.
UMESH KUMAR v. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH 225
Anupam Lal Das for the Appellant. A
G.N. Reddy, Ashok Panigrahi, Santosh Kumar, Surajit
Bhaduri for the Respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
B
Dr. B.S. CHAUHAN, J.1. Both these appeals have been
preferred against the impugned judgment and order dated
11.4.2012 passed by the High Court of Andhra Pradesh at
Hyderabad in Criminal Petition No. 12791 of 2011 by way of
which the High Court has quashed the charge sheet in C.C. No. C
555 of 2011 in respect of the offence under Section 468 of
Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as 'IPC').
However, it has not quashed the charge sheet in respect of
offences punishable under Sections 471, 120-B and 201 IPC.
Hence, these cross appeals by both parties i.e. the accused D
and the State of Andhra Pradesh.
2. Facts and circumstances giving rise to these appeals /
are that:
A. A letter dated 22.4.2011 was received by the Secretary, E
Ministry of Home Affairs, Union of India, purported to have been
written by one Shri M.A. Khan (Member of Parliament)
enclosing a representation of All India Banjara Seva Samithi
(hereinafter referred to as the 'Samithi') asking for an impartial
enquiry against Shri V. Dinesh Reddy, the then DG (Vigilance F
and Enforcement) Department - respondent no.2 alleging that
he had amassed disproportionate assets in the name of his
wife and her power of attorney holders. A large number of
documents were annexed in support of the allegations in the
complaint. The Joint Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs G
forwarded the said complaint to the Chief Secretary, Govt. of
AP. on 5.5.2011 for enquiry into the matter. The said letter was
received by the Chief Secretary, Govt. of AP. on 23.5.2011.
On the same day, a letter purporting to have been sent by Shri
M.A. Khan, M.P., was received by Govt. of A.P. through Shri H
226 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 14 S.C.R.
A V. Dinesh Reddy - respondent no.2, wherein it had been
alleged that the letter sent by the Central Government to the
Chief Secretary, A.P. had not been authored by Shri M.A. Khan,
M.P.
B. When the Chief Secretary, A.P. was examining the
8
matter, Shri V. Dinesh Reddy, - respondent No.2, the then DG
(V & E) wrote a letter to the State Government annexing a copy
of the letter of Shri M.A. Khan, M.P., dated 23.5.2011 denying
the authorship of that letter and ask a junior police officer to give
his report about the genuineness of the Samithi. Upon being
C informed that it was fictitious, respondent no.2 asked for a
detailed enquiry to be conducted to ascertain who had forged
the said letter and signature of Shri M.A. Khan, M.P., on the
complaint. Meanwhile, Shri V. Dinesh Reddy - respondent no.2,
was appointed as Director General of Police, A.P. on
D 30.6.2011.
C. The State Government asked the Additional D.G.P.,
Crime Investigation Department, namely Shri S.V. Ramana
Murthi to enquire and submit a report to the Government in
E respect of fabricating the letter and forging the signature of Shri
M.A. Khan, M.P. The said officer Shri Ramana Murthi did not
conduct any enquiry himself, rather he entrusted the same to
one Shri M. Malla Reddy, Deputy SP, CID. After conducting the
Ernquiry, Shri Malla Reddy submitted the enquiry report to
F Addl.D.G.P., CID on 22.8.2011, pointing out that one Shri T.
Sun ii Reddy obtained certified copy of the documents from the
office of the Sub-Registra·r on the instructions of some senior
officer. The said certified copies were the same as the ones
that had been annexed alongwith the complaint submitted in the
G name of the Samithi.
D. On the same day, i.e. 22.8.2011, Shri Ramana Murthi,
Addl.D.G.P., CID submitted the said report to Shri V. Dinesh
Reddy, respondent no.2 seeking directions and further
requesting him that the report be forwarded to the State
H Government.
UMESH KUMAR v. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH 227
[DR. B.S. CHAUHAN, J.]
E. On 24.8.2011, Shri Dinesh Reddy - respondent no.2 A
himself directed the registration of the First Information Report
(in short 'FIR') and that an investigation be conducted by CID.
As a consequence, the FIR was registered on 25.8.2011 and
one Shri J. Ranjan Ratan Kumar, Dy. S.P. was appointed as
the Investigating Officer. B
F. During the course of investigation, Shri T. Sunil Reddy
was arrested on 26.8.2011. His statement was recorded on
27 .8.2011 under Section 161 of Code of Criminal Procedure,
1973 (hereinafter referred to as 'Cr.P.C.') wherein Umesh C
Kumar, appellant was not named.
G. The report submitted by Shri Malla Reddy was
forwarded by Shri V. Dinesh Reddy - respondent no.2 to the
State Government on 27.8.2011. Shri T. Sunil Reddy was
remanded to judicial custody on 27.8.2011. It was during that D
judicial custody on 3.9.2011 that his statement was recorded
a second time under Section 161 Cr.P.C. wherein he named
Umesh Kumar, appellant. On being enlarged on bail on
5.9.2011, Shri T. Sunil Reddy made an application on 7.9.2011
under Section 306 Cr.P.C. to become an approver. E
H. Umesh Kumar, appellant, asked the Govt. of A.P. to
hold an investigation on the basis of the certified copy of the
sale deeds against respondent no.2. In the meanwhile, on
26.9.2011, the Investigating Officer filed a statement in the court
that unless the said Shri T. Sunil Reddy was granted pardon, F
there w0uld be no evidence against Umesh Kumar. The trial
court vide order dated 10.10.2011 accepted the application of
Shri T. Sunil Reddy and granted him pardon and made him an
approver. However, the said order dated 10.10.2011 was
quashed by the High Court vide judgment and order dated G
1.4.2012 in Writ Petition No. 31927 of 2011 filed by Umesh
Kumar, appellant.
I. After completing the investigation, a charge sheet dated
14.11.2011 was filed naming Umesh Kumar, appellant showing H
228 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013) 14 S.C.R.
A that offences punishable under Sections 468, 471, 120-B and
201 IPC had been committed.
J. Aggrieved, Umesh Kumar approached the High Court
under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing the said charge sheet.
However, the High Court vide impugned judgment and order
8
dated 11.4.2012 quashed the charge sheet only in part as
referred to hereinabove. '
Hence, these cross appeals.
c 3. The matter was heard at length and after considering
the gravity of the allegations against respondent no.2 and his
alleged involvement, this court issued notice to him suo motu
and after hearing his counsel he was impleaded as -a
respondent.
D 4. Shri Rakesh Dwivedi, learned senior counsel appearing
for Umesh Kumar, appellant has submitted that the purported
complaint sent by Shri M.A. Khan, M.P., to the Central
Government was. duly supported by a large number of
documents showing that respondent no.2 had amassed wealth
E which was disproportionate to his known sources of income.
His wife had purchased various benami properties. The
certified copies of the said sale deeds are admissible in
evidence in court. Even if the allegations against Umesh Kumar,
appellant are correct, there could have been a fair enquiry on
F the said allegations against respondent no.2. However, the
State of A.P. discriminated against the appellant and has taken
no action whatsoever till today to examine whether the said
respondent has acquired disproportionate assets.
G When the matter was referred by the State Government to
the Addi. D.G.P. directly without informing respondent no.2 to
hold an ~nquiry to find out whether the signatun~ of Shri M.A.
Khan, M.P. was genuine and about the exis•tence of the
Samithi, in such a situation, respondent no.2 had no business
H to interfere with the matter and pass any order. The enquiry had
UMESH KUMAR v. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH 229
[DR. S.S. CHAUHAN, J.]
been entrusted to the Addi. D.G.P. However, the said Addi. A
D.G.P. further entrusted the same to the Deputy S.P. who
arrested one Shri T. Sunil Reddy, made him an approver and
got his statement recorded naming Umesh Kumar. Before the
report submitted by Shri Malla Reddy could reach the State
Government, respondent no.2 directed that an FIR be lodged B
without waiting for the direction of the State Government. Since
by that time, respondent no.2 had been appointed as D.G.P.,
A.P., unofficially, he had been in contact with Shri M.A. Khan,
M.P., and created a situation where the enquiry could be
directed only against Umesh Kumar, appellant. c
In spite of the fact that this court passed an order on
24.7.2013 directing the Chief Secretary, A.P. to disclose
whether any enquiry had ever been 'Tlade against the said
respondent no.2 with respect to disproportionate assets, the
Chief Secretary, A.P. had not submitted any clear cut reply to D
this court. The Chief Secretary gave an evasive reply without
disclosing any fact in this regard. The evidence collected
illegally is admissible in law. Thus, the Govt. of A.P. should have
conducted inquiry against respondent No. 2 on the basis of the
sale deeds annexed alongwith the complaint. There is collusion E
between the State Government and respondent no.2
discriminating against the appellant. The High Court ought to
have quashed the whole charge sheet being a product of
malafides and illegal activities of the State and .respondent
no.2. Thus, the appeal filed by Umesh Kumar deserves to be F
allowed and appeal filed by the State is ,liable to be dismissed.
5. Shri R. Venkataramani, learned senior counsel
appearing for the State has submitted that Umesh Kumar
hatched a conspiracy and obtained the certified copies of the G
sale deeds which were in the name of different persons and
filed a complaint in the fictitious name forging the signature of
Shri M.A. Khan, M.P. Such a fact had been disclosed by his
accomplice Shri T. Sunil Reddy and other persons like Shri
Lokesh Kumar etc. Respondent no.2 being the head of the H
2:30 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 14 S.C.R.
A police department has rightly issued the direction to lodge an
FIR and investigate the matter. The High Court committed an
error entertaining his petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. without
any ground. As it was at the pre-emptive stage the matter could
have been examined by the c6mpetent court; issues raised by
B Umesh Kumar could have been examined at the time of framing
of the charges; and he could have filed an application for
discharge. As charges can be altered at any stage during the
triial, the High Court could not have quashed the charge sheet
in respect of only Section 468 IPC. Thus, the appeal filed by
- c Umesh Kumar is liable to the dismissed and the appeal filed
by the State deserves to be allowed.
6. Shri U.U. Lalit, learned senior r;ounsel appearing for
re~spondent no.2 has submitted that by filing a complaint in the
fictitious name and forging the signature of Shri M.A. Khan,
D M.P., the reputation of respondent no.2 was put at stake.
Admittedly, the complaint was in a fictitious name and with a
forged signature. A case had been registered in respect of the
same with Delhi Police, however, it could not proceed further.
The office of the CID was chosen by the Chief Secretary and
E an enquiry was entrusted to the said department. Therefore,
there could be no malice or malafides so far as respondent
no.2 is concerned. More so, the name of Umesh Kumar,
appellant, was not disclosed till the respondent no.2 was
appointed as D.G.P. His name could be unearthed at a
F subsequent stage. Shri M.A. Khan, M.P. contacted the said
rE~spondent and asked for a prelim.inary enquiry. The said
mspondent forwarded the said report. Therefore, there could
b1e no malice against him whatsoever. In view of the above, the
appeal of Umesh Kumar, appellant is liable to be dismissed.
G
7. We have heard the rival submissions made by learned
counsel for the parties and perused the record.
8. The facts are not in dispute. The letter dated 22.4.2011
purported to have been written by Shri M.A. Khan, M.P.,
H suggests that various properties had been purchased by
UMESH KUMAR v. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH 231
[DR. B.S. CHAUHAN, J.]
respondent no.2 as benami and the copies of the sale deeds A
etc. filed alongwith the said letter fortify the same. The
Government of India wrote a letter to the Chief Secretary, Govt.
of AP. on 5.5.2011 to conduct an enquiry in respect of alleged
disproportionate assets made by the respondent no.2 by
purchase of huge lands either by himself or in the name of his B
wife or through benamis. Shri M.A. Khan, M.P. vide letter dated
23.5.2011 pointed out to the Central Government that he had
not signed the complaint and his signature had been forged.
Umesh Kumar, appellant had asked the State Government to
conduct an enquiry in respect of the disproportionate assets c
of the respondent no.2.
The memo dated 2.8.2011 issued by the Govt. of AP.
revealed that respondent no.2 had conducted an enquiry in the
matter of the letter purported to have been sent by Sh. M.A.
Khan, M.P. He reached the conclusion that the complaint had D
been filed with the forged signature of Shri M.A. Khan, M.P.,
and made a request to the State Government to order a CID
probe into the matter of forgery, criminal conspiracy, and
cheating as no such Samithi was in existence and the letter was
bogus. It was in. view thereof, the Government directed the E
enquiry on the following issues:
(i) Who forged the letter of Member of Parliament?
(ii) Who obtained all the documents running into
hundreds of pages from the concerned Sub- F
Registrar's office?
The Memo further revealed that Addi. D.G.P., Crime
Investigation Department would conduct the enquiry into the
above issues and submit a report to the Government at an G
early date. The copy of the same was sent to respondent no.2
and to the Central Government in addition to the Addi. D.G.P.
9. Admittedly, no attempt has ever been made by any
person to hold the enquiry relating to the genuineness of the
H
232 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 14 S.C.R.
A allegations in the complaint purported to have been signed by
Shri M.A. Khan, M.P. The letter dated 24.8.2011 makes it clear
that before the report could reach the Government, respondent
no.2 directed that an FIR be lodged, enquiry conducted and the
report of the same be submitted to his office. The documents
B revealed that the statement made by Shri T. Sunil Reddy after
his arrest did not reveal the name of Umesh Kumar. However,
when he was in police custody and his statement was recorded
a second time he named the appellant. It is also evident that
he was made an approver with the help of the public prosecutor
C and later on the said order of the trial court was set aside by
the High Court at the behest of Umesh Kumar.
10. The aforesaid facts clearly reveal the following things:
(I) Even if the said complaint was in a fictitic>us name with
D a forged signature, the material annexed with the said complaint
revealed that various properties had been .Purchased by the
respondent No.2, in his name or in the name of his wife or her
General Power of Attorney holders.
(II) The Central Government had asked the State
E Government to conduct an inquiry of the allegations in the said
complaint which the State Government did not ensure
compliance of.
(Ill) In spite of our order dated 24.7.2013 directing the Chief
F Secretary to file his personal affidavit as to wheth1~r any attempt
had ever been made to find out .the truth in the said allegations,
the Chief Secretary filed a defective affidavit which does not
reflect any light on the issue whatsoever.
G (IV) When the enquiry was ~ntrus.ted by the State
Government directly to a particular police officer and the officer
submitted the report, but. before reaching the Government,
respondent no.2 directed that an FIR be lodged against Umesh
Kumar, appellant and an investigation be conducted. The report
H was sent to the State Government subsequent thereto, and even
UMESH KUMAR v. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH 233
[DR. B.S. CHAUHAN, J.]
on that report the State Government had never taken any A
decision whatsoever, and in the meanwhile the charge sheet
was filed.
(V) The charge sheet was filed under various provisions
of the IPC and some of them are exclusively triable by the Court · 8
of Sessions and not by the magistrate. There are no committal
proceedings till now in the case. Therefore, the stage of framing
the charges or considering an application for discharge has not
yet arrived.
(VI) Shri T. Sunil Reddy had not disclosed the name of C
Umesh Kumar, appellant in his first statement. However,
subsequently when he was in police custody and his statement
was recorded a second time he revealed his name. He was
also granted pardon and made an approver by the order of the
trial court and the said order has been set aside by the High D
Court at the behest of Umesh Kumar as referred to
herein above.
(VII) Various other cases regarding the enquiry against
respondent no.2 by the CBI or an independent agency, are E
reported to be pending before the High Court, and it is pointed
out that the learned Single Judge has allowed the said writ
petition, but the Division Bench had stayed the operation of the
said order at the behest of respondent No.2. The learned
Additional Advocate General at the direction of the High Court
had placed a large number of sale deeds in respect of land
F
purported to have l:>een purchased by respondent No.2's wife
and her sister Smt. S. Nalini between 1998 and 2005, either
in her name or her relatives or General Power of Attorney
holders.
G
(VIII) The High Court partly quashed the charge sheet
observing that the offence under Section 468 IPC is not made
out.
Case against Umesh Kumar - appellant :
H
234 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 14 S.C.R.
A 11. Allegations against any person if found to be false or
made forging some one else signature may affect his
reputation. Reputation is a sort of right to enjoy the good
opinion of others and it is a personal right and an enquiry to
reputation is a personal injury. Thus. scandal and defamation
B are injurious to reputation. Reputation has been defined in
dictionary as "to have a good name; the credit, honor, or
character which is derived from a favourable public opinion or
esteem and character by report". Personal rights of a human
being include the right of reputation. A good reputation is an
c element of personal security and is protected by the
Constitution equally with the right to the enjoyment of life, liberty
and property. Therefore, it has been held to be a necessary
element in regard to right to life of a citizen under Article 21 of
the Constitution. International Covenant on Civil and Political
Rights 1966 recognises the right to have opinions and the right
0
of freedom of expression under Article 19 is subject to the
right of reputation of others. Reputation is "not only a salt
of life but the purest treasure and the most precious perfume
of life." (Vide: Smt. Kiran Bedi & Jinder Singh v. The
E Committee of Inquiry & Anr., AIR 1989 SC 714; Board of
Trustees of the Port of Bombay v. Di/ipkumar
Raghavendranath Nadkami & Ors., AIR 1983 SC 109; Nilgiris
Bar Association v. TK Maha/ingam & Anr., AIR 1998 SC 398;
Dr. Mehmood Nayyar Azam v. State of Chattisgarh & Ors.,
AIR 2012 SC 2573; Vishwanath Sitaram Agrawal v. Sau Sar/a
F Vishwanath Agrawal, AIR 2012 SC 586; and Kishore Samrite
v. State of U.P. & Ors., (2013) 2 SCC 398).
12. In view thereof, if any person has forged in a letter under
the name of the Samithi and forged the signature of Shri M.A.
G Khan, M.P., the matter being of grave nature requires
investigation and, in view of above, we cannot find fault with the
action initiated against Umesh Kumar, appellant. Once criminal
law is put in motion and after investigation the charge sheet is
filed, it requires scrutiny in the court of law. However, before
H the charges could be framed, Umesh Kumar, appellant,
UMESH KUMAR v. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH 235
[DR. B.S. _CHAUHAN, J.]
approached the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for A
quashi11g of the charge sheet. The scope of Section 482
Cr.P.C. is well defined and inherent powers could be exercised
by the High Court to give effect to an order under the Cr.P.C.;
to prevent abuse of the process of court; and to otherwise
secure the ends of justice. This extraordinary power is to be B
exercised ex debito justitiae. However, in exercise of such
powers, it is not permissible for the High Court to appreciate
the evidence as it can only evaluate material documents on
record to the extent of its prima facie satisfaction about the
existence of sufficient ground for proceedings against the c
accused and the court cannot look into materials, the
acceptability of which is essentially a matter for trial. Any
document filed alongwith the petition labelled as evidence
without being tested and proved, cannot be examined. Law
does not prohibit entertaining the petition under Section 482 D
Cr.P.C. for quashing the charge sheet even before the charges
are framed or before the application of discharge is filed or
even during its pendency of such application before the court
concerned. The High Court cannot reject the application merely
on the ground that the accused can argue legal and factual
issues at the time of the framing of the charge. However, the E
inherent power of the court should not be exercised to stifle the
legitimate prosecution but can be exercised to save the
accused to undergo the agony of a criminal trial.
(Vide: Pepsi Food Ltd. & Anr. v. Special Judicial F
Magistrf1te & Ors., AIR 1998 SC 128; Ashok Chat1,1Nedi & Ors.
v. Shitulh Chanchani & Anr. AIR 1998 SC 2796; G. Sagar Suri
& Anr. v. State of U.P. & Ors., AIR 2000 SC 754; and Padal
Venkata Rama Reddy @ Ramu v. Kovvuri Satyanarayana
Reddy & Ors., (2011) 12 sec 437) G
13. In Rajiv Thapar v Madan Lal Kapoor, 2013 (3) SCC
330, this Court while dealing with the issue held as follows:
" Based on the factors canvassed in the foregoing
paragraphs, we would delineate the following steps to H
236 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 14 S.C.R.
A determine the veracity of a prayer for quashing, raised
by an accused by invoking the power vested in the High
Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure:
(i) Step one, whether the material relied upon by the
B accused is sound, reasonable, and indubitable, i.e., the
material is of sterling and impeccable quality?
(ii) Step two, whether the material relied upon by the
accused, would rule out the assertions contained in the
c 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.
D
(iii) Step 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?
E (iv) Step four, whether proceeding with the trial would
result in an abuse of process of the court, and would not
serve the ends of justice?"
14. In State of Bihar v. P.P. Sharma & Anr., AIR 1991 SC
F 1260, this Court dealt with an issue of whether an application
under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing the charge sheet
should be entertained before cognizance is taken by a criminal
court and held as under:-
"Quashing the charge-sheet even before cognizance is
G taken by a criminal Court amounts to killing a still born
child. Till the criminal Court takes cognizance of the
offence there is no criminal proceedings pending. I am
not allowing the appeals on the ground •~lternative
remedies provided by the Code as a bar. It may be
H relevant in an appropriate case. My view is that
UMESH KUMAR v. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH 237
[DR. B.S. CHAUHAN, J.]
entertaining the writ petitions against charge-sheet and A
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 trial .... It is not to suggest that
under no circumstances a writ petition should be
entertained ..... The charge-sheet and the evidence B
placed in support thereof form the base to take or refuse
to take cognizance by the competent Court. It is not the
case that no offence has been made out in the
chargesheets and the First Information Report."
(Emphasis added) C
15. The issue of malafides looses its significance if there
is a substance in the allegation made in complaint moved with
malice.
D
In Sheo Nandan Paswan v. State of Bihar & Ors., AIR
1987 SC BT( this .Court
... held as under:
"It is a well-established proposition of law that a criminal
prosecution, if otherwise justifiable and based upon
adequate evidence doe~ not become vitiated on account E
of ma/a tides or political vendetta of the first informant or
complainant." ·
16. In Parkash Singh Badal v. State of Punjab & Ors., AIR
2007 SC 1274, this Court held as under: F
"The ultimate test, therefore, is· whether the a/legations
have any substance. An investigation should not be shut
out at the threshold because a political opponent or a
person with political difference raises an allegation of G
commission of offence. Therefore, the plea of ma/a tides
as raised cannot be maintained."
17. In State of A.P. v. Go/oconda Unga Swamy & Anr.,
AIR 2004 SC 3967, this Court held as under:
H
238 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 14 S.C.R.
A "It is the material collected during the investigation and
evidence led in court which decides the fate of the
accused person. The a/legations of malafides against
the informant are of no consequence and cannot by
themselves be the basis for quashing the proceeding."
B
(See also: K. Karunakaran v. State of Kera/a, (2007) 1
sec 59).
18. Thus, in view of the above, it becomes evident that in
case there is some substance in the allegations and material
C exists to substantiate the complicity of the applicant, the case
is to be examined in its full conspectus and the proceedings
should not be quashed only on the ground that the same had
been initiated with mala fides to wreak vengeance or to achieve
an ulterior goal.
D
19. Scheme for inquiry/trial provided under the Cr.P.C. is
qtJite clear. After investigation, report under Section 173(2)
Cr.P.C. is to be submitted before the competent court i.e.
magistrate having jurisdiction in the matter and the magistrate
E may take cognizance under Section 190 Cr.P.C. However, it
is still open to the magistrate to direct further investigation under
the provisions of Section 173(8) Cr.P.C. If the case is triable
by the Court of Sessions, the magistrate would commit the
case to the said court under Section 209 Cr.P.C. It is for the
court to examine whether there is sufficient material collected
F during investigation and filed alongwith the charge sheet that
a prima facie view can be taken to proceed against the
accused and in view thereof, frame charges under Section 228
Cr.P.C. At this stage the remedy available to the accused is
to ask for discharge under Section 227 Cr.P.C. In case charges.
G are framed the accused has to face the trial, charges can be
added/altered at any stage of the trial, before the
pronouncement of the judgment to suit the evidence adduced
before the court, under the provisions of Section 216 Cr.P.C.
The only legal requirement is that a witness has to be recalled
H
UMESH KUMAR v. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH 239
[DR. B.S. CHAUHAN, J.]
as provided under Section 217 Cr.P.C. when a charge is A
altered or added by the court.
20. In the instant case, charge sheet had been filed and
the cognizance had been taken by the magistrate concerned;
the committal proceedings have not yet taken place; and some
B
of the offences attracted in this case are exclusively triable by
the Sessions Court. Umesh Kumar, appellant approached the
High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and the charge sheet
has been partly quashed observing that the provisions of Section
468 IPC are not attracted.
c
21. The question does arise as to whether such an order
attained finality and in case the evidence is adduced before
the court concerned, whether the trial court can still hold that
the applicant is required to be tried for the offence under Section
468 l.P.C. and further whether the trial would be competent on D
the said charge in exercise of its power under Section 216
Cr.P.C.?
22. In State of Maharashtra v. Salman Salim Khan, AIR
2004 SC 1189, this Court depreciated the practice of E
entertaining the petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. at a pre-
mature stage of the proceedings observing as under:
".... The 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. Otherwise as observed F
in this case, proceedings get protracted by the
intervention of the superior courts .... The High Court by
the impugned order had allowed the said application
quashing the charge under Section 304 /PC against the
respondent herein while it maintained the other charges G
and direct the Magistrate's court to frame the de novo
charges ...... We are of the opinion that though it is open
to a High Court entertaining a petition under Section 482
of the Code to quash charges framed by the trial Court,
same cannot be done by weighing the correctness or H
240 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013) 14 S.C.R.
A sufficiency of evidence. In 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. The truthfulness, the sufficiency .and
B acceptability of the material produced at the time of
framing of charge can be done only at the stage of
trial. ...... we 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
c under Section 304, Part II, /PC, 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
not to have been given at this stage ..... ". (Emphasis
added)
D The Court set aside the order of the High Court and left it
open to the trial court to modify the charges in accordance with
the evidence adduced before it.
(See also: Sohan Lal & Ors. v. State of Rajasthan, AIR
E 1990 SC 2158)
23. A Constitution Bench of this Court reiterated a similar
view in CB/ & Ors. v. Keshub Mahindra etc., AIR 2011 SC
2037 observing that when the charges are framed, the court
makes an endorsement till that stage. So charges are framed
F on the materials produced by the prosecution for framing the
charges "at that stage". Such indication is necessary
otherwise the provisions contained in Sections 216, 323, 386,
397, 399, 401 etc. Cr.P.C., would be rendered nugatory and
denuded a competent court of the powers under those
G provisions. The court cannot be restrained from exercising its
powers either under Section 323 or Section 216 Cr.P.C.
24. The High Court was approached by Umesh Kumar,
aPP'ellant under section 482 Cr.P.C. at a premature stage. At
' H the said stage the High Court could examine the chargesheet,
'
•'
UMESH KUMAR v. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH 241
[DR. B.S. CHAUHAN, J.]
case diary and other material in the chargesheet which by no A
means can be termed as substantive evidence. (Vide: Lok
Ram v Niha/ Singh & Ors. AIR 2006 SC 1892).
25. Thus, in view of above, the order of the High Court
impugned before us cannot be termed as a final decision. The 8
order is subject to further order which could be passed by the
trial court under Section 216 Cr.P.C., on the basis of the
evidence to be led during trial. If the impugned order is dubbed
as having attained finality, the provisions of Section 216 Cr.P.C.
would render otiose/nugatory. Thus, the same is to be read that C
the said order had been passed taking into consideration the
material which was available "at that stage" and it is still open
to the trial court to add or alter the charges according to the
evidence produced before it.
Complaint against Respondent No.2: D
26. The complaint was initial!;· made in respect of
acquiring huge immovable properties by respondent No. 2 in
his name and in the name of his wife, and the Central
Government had asked the State Government to conduct an
E
inquiry into the said allegations. The complaint may be forged
or fabricated, but it is nobody's case that the copies of sale
deeds annexed alongwith the said complaint were not genuine.
While issuing direction to hold inquiry/investigation as to who
had fabricated the said complaint and forged the signatures of
F
Shri M.A. Khan, M.P., the allegations of acquiring properties
by the respondent No.2 have been abandoned and unattended
altogether.
Even though the complaint was bogus, however, the sale
deeds annexed alongwith the same though illegally collected G
by someone, have not been found to be fabricated documents.
27. It is a settled legal proposition that even if a document
is procured by improper or illegal means, there is no bar to its
admissibility if it is relevant and its genuineness is proved. If H
242 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 14 S.C;R.
A the evidence is admissible, it does not matter how it has been
obtained. However, as a matter of caution, the court in exercise
of its discretion may disallow certain evidence in a criminal
case if the strict rules of admissibility would operate unfairly
against the accused. More so, the court must conclude that it
B is genuine and free from tampering or mutilation. This court
repelled the contention that obtaining evidence illegally by using
tape recordings or photographs offend Articles 20(3) and 21
of the Constitution of India as acquiring the evidence by such
methods was not the procedure established by law. (Vide:
c Yusufal/i Esmail Nagree v. The State of Maharashtra, AIR
1968 SC 147; Magraj Patodia v. R.K. Bir/a & Ors., 1970 (2)
SCC 888; R.M. Malkani v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1973
SC 157; Pooran Mal v. Director of Inspection, Income- Tax,
New Delhi & Ors., AIR 1974 SC 348; and State (NCTof Delhi)
D v. Navjot Sandhu alias Afsan Guru, (2005) 11 SCC 600).
28. In such a fact-situation if illegally collected material can
be examined by the court of law, we fail to understand how the
State Government could not examine the contents of the
complaint on the basis of the annexed copies of sale deeds
E etc.
During the arguments of this case, our conscious was
shocked as to the manner the State of Andhra Pradesh has
misdirected itself and abandoned the most relevant issue i.e.
F complaint against Shri V. Dinesh Reddy - respondent no.2 and
concentrated exclusively against Umesh Kumar, appellant
Thus, vide order dated 24. 7 .2013, we have asked the Chief
Secretary of the State of Andhra Pradesh to disclose as to
whether any preliminary/disciplinary inquiry has ever been
G conducted by the State in respect of the alleged sale deeds in
favour of the spouse or her general power of attorney holders
or relatives of respondent No. 2.
29. In reply to our order dated 24. 7.2013, the Chief
Secretary has filed an undated affidavit though attested by a
H Joint Secretary to Govt. of A.P., and has given numerous
UMESH KUMAR v. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH 243
[DR. B.S. CHAUHAN, J.]
explanations in respect of the alleged pseudonymous petition A
filed with a fictitious name of the Samithi and with the forged
signature of Shri M.A. Khan, M.P. The Chief Secretary has
taken the plea that the Government of A.P. could not investigate
an enquiry about the disproportionate assets of the respondent
no.2 in view of the fact that the High Court of Andhra Pradesh B
vide order dated 2.5.2013 stayed the operation of the learned
Single Judge's order to conduct an enquiry into the allegations.
The Chief Secretary to the Govt. of Andhra Pradesh has not
revealed whether a preliminary enquiry or a domestic enquiry
had ever been conducted till 2.5.2013 when the High Court c
passed the restraint order. The complaint was filed on
22.4.2011 and more than two years had elapsed when the High
Court passed the order. No explanation has been furnished as
to why for two years the enquiry could not be held in this regard.
30. Attestation of the undated affidavit is in utter disregard D
to the provisions of Section 139 of the Code of Civil Procedure,
1908. (hereinafter referred to as the 'CPC'). The Supreme
Court Rules 1966 under Order XI, Rule 7 also require
adherence to the provisions of Section 139 CPC. Hence, his
reply is not worth taking on record and being undated, renders E
the same to be a piece of waste paper.
The definition of 'affidavit' in Section 3(3) of the General
Clauses Act 1897 provides that it "shall include affirmation and
declaration in the case of persons by law allowed to affirm or
declare instead of swearing". Thus, it is an essential F
characteristic of an affidavit that it should be made on oath or
affirmation before a person having authority to administer the
oath or affirmation, and thus, duty to state on oath on the part
of the deponent is sacrosanct. Same remains the position in
respect of administration of oath as required under the Oaths G
Act 1873.
(See: Krishan Chander Nayar v. The Chairman, Central
Tractor Organisation & Ors., AIR 1962 SC 602; Chhotan
Prasad Singh & Ors. v. Hari Dusadh & Ors., AIR 1977 SC
H
244 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 14 S.C.R.
A 407; and M. Veerabhadra Rao v. Tek Chand, AIR 1985 SC
28).
31. In view of the above, we have no hesitation to hold that
the Chief Secretary had the audacity not to ensure the
compliance of the order of this court dated 24. 7.2013, and we
B have no words to express our anguish and condemn the attitude
adopted by the Chief Secretary. More so, holding such a
responsible post in the State, he must have some sense of
responsibility and should have been aware of what are the
minimum requirements of law, and even if he did not know he
C could have consulted any law officer of the State before filing
the undated affidavit.
32. Be that as it may, facts of the case warranted some
enquiry in respect of the allegations of acquiring huge
properties by Shri V. Dinesh Reddy - respondent no.2. The
D State took the courage to flout the order of the Central
Government and did not look into the contents of the complaint
and misdirected the enquiry against Umesh Kumar, appellant.
In such a fact-situation, this court would not fail in its duty to
direct the enquiry in those allegations.
E
33. In view of the above, the appeals are disposed of
directing the CBI to investigate the matter against Shri V.
Dinesh Reddy - respondent no. 2 on the allegations of
acquiring the disproportionate assets. However, this should not
F be considered as expressing any opinion upon the merits of
the case. The Chief Secretary to the Government of Andhra
Pradesh is directed to make the copies of the said sale deeds
available to the CBI for investigation.
34. Case of Umesh Kumar - appellant would proceed
G before the Trial Court as explained hereinabove.
A copy of the judgment and order be sent to the Director,
CBI, forthwith. The CBI shall submit the Status Report to this
Court within four months.
H Bibhuti Bhushan Bose Appeals disposed of.
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.
Try "Right to life"Sign in to search