HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD Criminal Petition No.4178 of 2009 ORDER: The Criminal Petition has been filed to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.1870 of 2008 on the file of the Court of III Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad. The second respondent gave a complaint to Sanjeeva Reddy Nagar Police Station on 01-05-2007 alleging impersonation and cheating by G. Vijay Gyaneswar Naidu falsely professing as an advocate and filing vakalats in various Courts. The second respondent further alleged that the Bar Council issued membership to G.V. Gyaneswar Rao with the photo of G. Vijay Gyaneswar Naidu on the application form. It is also alleged that a false declaration/ affidavit was given to the Bar Council regarding the reasons for discontinuance of studies. The second respondent further alleged that G.V.G. Naidu is cheating the public in the name of Arbitrators and Associates at House No.185/B, S.R. Nagar. By giving false declaration and producing false educational certificates, he obtained a fake passport, tele connections and registration certificate of his Scorpio vehicle. The police registered the complaint in Cr.No.394 of 2007, investigated into it and filed a final report before the Juvenile Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, stating that the detailed statement of the second respondent was recorded and that the premises with the board “Naidu Associates & Arbitrators” was revealed to be under the tenancy of G.V.G. Naidu, which he did not vacate on which a case is pending before the Principal Rent Controller, Hyderabad, between the said G. Vijay Gyaneswar Naidu and the second respondent, the landlord. The investigating officer obtained information from Osmania University, who stated from their records that one G.V. Gyaneshwar Rao passed B.A. in 1986 and LLB in 2004. The Bar Council of State of Andhra Pradesh had informed that no advocate with the name “G. Vijay Gyaneshwar Naidu” was enrolled, but one G.V. Gyaneshar Rao was enrolled on 30-09-2004. The certificate submitted by the candidate, according to the Bar Council, was found by the investigating officer to be the same as stated by the Osmania University. The passport authorities informed that G.V.G. Naidu applied for passport facilities by post furnishing attested copies of relation, SSC and Degree certificates for proof. The passport authorities stated that in the certificates his name is G.V. Gyaneshwar Rao and in the passport application, he mentioned as Gajula Gyaneshwar Naidu. They further stated that the passport was issued on the basis of clear police report. Similarly, the SSC and Intermediate Board authorities verified the certificates and stated them to be genuine. The investigating officer further stated in the final report that the allegation levelled by the complainant that G.V.G. Naidu produced false educational certificates in the name of Gajula Vijaya Gyaneshwar Naidu and obtained fake passport, phone connections and registered his Scorpio vehicle “is not ruled out”. After obtaining legal opinion from the Legal Advisor in the office of the Commissioner of Police, the investigating officer referred the case as “FALSE”. The second respondent filed a protest petition before the III Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, reiterating the complaint and stating that the reason for the discontinuity of study between SSC 1979 October and B.A. degree 1986 was on account of the agricultural works at his field in Medak District is a false declaration made by G. Vijay Gyaneshwar Naidu to the Bar Council. The second respondent alleged in the protest petition that G. Vijay Gyaneshwar Naidu indulged in impersonation and fraudulent methods and filing false vakalats. A fake passport was obtained in the name of Gajula Vijay Gyaneshwar Naidu and similarly tele services and registration of Scorpio vehicle were obtained. In Cr.No.73 of 2007 on the file of S.R. Nagar Police Station, he described himself as G.S. Naidu and S.R. Nagar police submitted the final report after a partial enquiry that they did not rule out production of false educational certificates. The investigating agency should have verified whether G. Vijay Gyaneswar Naidu and G.V. Gyaneshwar Rao are one and the same and as to how G.V. Gyaneshwar Rao suddenly changed to G. Vijay Gyaneshwar Naidu. Whether the due process of law was followed to change the name and whether any publication of change of name in the Government Gazette was made should have been verified. The second respondent further alleged that he never alleged the certificates of G.V. Gyaneshwar Rao to be fabricated and bogus. But, it is not ruled out that G. Vijay Gyaneshwar Naidu was lent the certificates of G.V. Gyaneshwar Rao. The second respondent, therefore, desired the final report to be rejected and the Deputy Commissioner of Police, West Zone, to be ordered to reinvestigate the matter. On the court taking cognizance of such protest petition, the petitioner filed the present petition claiming innocence and contending the case to be a counter blast to the Rent Control case filed by him. Claiming that the criminal proceedings are an abuse of process of court, the petitioner desired the further proceedings to be quashed. The petitioner also enclosed a copy of the order of the Bar Council dated 14-07-2008 on the complaint of one G. Srinivasa Madiga and the second respondent herein in which the response of the petitioner herein to the complaint and verification with the authorities of Osmania University about the certificates of Graduation and Law were referred for formation of the opinion by the Bar Council that no prima facie case is made out. The complaint was consequently rejected. In Crl.P.M.P.No.4594 of 2009, the second respondent desired the interim stay granted herein to be vacated in the light of the interim stay being in violation of the precedents cited by him in his affidavit and claiming the petitioner to have misguided this court by mentioning himself as G.V. Gyaneshwar Rao. He also filed copies of various documents along with his counter affidavit dated 6-7-2009 showing the petitioner to have described himself as G. Vijay Gyaneshwar Naidu in those proceedings. On such material on record, the arguments of Sri M. Viswanadham, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri A. Ramesh, learned counsel representing the learned Public Prosecutor for the first respondent and the second respondent in person are heard at length. The second respondent referred to some precedents, which lay down the scope of inherent jurisdiction of the High Court provided by Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. It is needless to replicate all the precedents, which more or less reiterate the law laid down in State of Haryana and others v. Ch. Bhajanlal and others[1], wherein it was held that the High Court in exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India or under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure may interfere in the proceedings relating to the cognizable offences to prevent the abuse of process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. The note of caution is that the power should be exercised very sparingly and with circumspection and that too in the rarest of rare cases without embarking upon an enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the First Information Report or the complaint. Where the uncontroverted allegations in the FIR or the complaint or the evidence collected in support of the same do not prima facie constitute an offence or make out a case against the accused, such power should be exercised. The facts of the present case need to be examined in the light of the above legal position. The complaint of the second respondent leading to the registration of Cr.No.394 of 2007 of Sanjeeva Reddy Nagar police station alleging about impersonation and cheating by G. Vijay Gyaneshwar Naidu on its plain grammatical sense is about only one person indulging in the alleged acts describing himself as G. Vijay Gyaneshwar Naidu and as G.V. Gyaneshwar Rao, apart from allegedly giving a false declaration/affidavit about the reasons for discontinuity of studies. The complaint does not in any manner suggest any doubt as to whether the said two names referred to the same person or to two different persons. Along with the counter affidavit herein, the second respondent filed copies of various proceedings relating to the Rent Control case wherein the petitioner was described as G. Vijay Gyaneshwar Naidu and he also filed copy of the passport of the petitioner wherein he was described as Gajula Vijay Gyaneshwar Naidu. The second respondent further filed copy of the memo filed on behalf of the petitioner in C.C.No.1870 of 2008 wherein he was described as G.V.G. Naidu and the other proceedings in the criminal case wherein the second respondent described the petitioner as G. Vijay Gyaneshwar Naidu and sought to summon the membership certificate of the Bar Council and other certificates of educational qualifications and original passport and telephone bills etc. The second respondent desired the production of various documents by the Regional Passport Officer, Secretary of Secondary School Education, Secretary of Board of Intermediate Education, General Manager, BSNL, Controller of Examinations of Osmania University and Inspector of Police, Sanjeeva Reddy Nagar police station obviously to indicate that the petitioner was described as G.V. Gyaneshwar Rao in all his certificates, while he obtained the passport in the name of Gajula Vijay Gyaneshwar Naidu and he is describing as himself as G. Vijay Gyaneshwar Naidu. The petitioner obviously is mentioning his initial as “G” throughout and the surname given in the passport as “Gajula” is no contradiction in any manner and the expansion of “G” being “Gajula” cannot be considered misleading or wrong in any manner. Similarly, the expansion of “V” as “Vijay” is also no way misleading. The use of the word “Gyaneshwar” by the petitioner in describing himself in any manner is common. It is only the end of the name that differed between the certificates of educational qualifications and the membership of the Bar Council and the subsequent description of himself by the petitioner. Originally it was “Rao”, while it is now “Naidu” with “Naidu” missing earlier and “Rao” missing now. Still the same did not confuse anybody is evident from the order of the Bar Council of the State of Andhra Pradesh dated 14-07-2008, which was passed after obtaining the comments of the petitioner and the clarification from Osmania University on the certificates of Graduation and Law of the petitioner and on satisfying that the said certificates are genuine, on the complaint of the second respondent and another about fake certificates enabling G.V.G. Naidu @ G.V.G. Rao to practice as advocate. The Bar Council, a statutory authority, therefore, rejected the complaint. Even the final report by the police clearly shows that the Controller of Examinations of Osmania University, the Secretary of the Bar Council of State of Andhra Pradesh, the Passport authorities and the authorities of SSC and Intermediate Board stated the certificates of the petitioner to be genuine and the information from the passport authorities showed that in spite of discrepancy between the name in the certificates as “Rao” and in the passport application as “Naidu”, the petitioner was given a clear police report due to which a passport was issued in the name of Naidu. The strongest ground on which the second respondent is relying is on the mention in the final report by the Sub-Inspector of Police that the allegations levelled by the complainant that G.V.G. Naidu produced false educational certificates and obtained fake passport, phone connections and registration of his Scorpio vehicle in the name of Gajula Vijaya Gyaneshwar Naidu “is not ruled out”. But, a reading together of all the contents of the final report may be suggestive of the likelihood of the word “not” being incorporated due to an inadvertent or typographical error. “Not” ruling out production of false educational certificates clearly runs contrary to all the verifications made and conclusions reached by the investigating officer, according to the final report, and therefore, much emphasis cannot be laid on the same. Bereft of any suspicion created by the said “not ruling out”, it is clear that the conclusion of the investigating officer that the complaint case is false is based on acceptable and convincing material and verifiable and dependable reasoning. The petitioner described himself as G.V. Gyaneshwar Rao herein obviously in tune with such description given in the criminal proceedings and describing his father as G. Prabhakar Rao or G.P.R. Naidu etc., also similarly cannot be considered to be misleading. Therefore, the certificates of educational qualifications of the petitioner or the membership certificate of the petitioner issued by the Bar Council or the passport of the petitioner or the documents for Tele Communications or the registration certificate of the petitioner’s Scorpio vehicle cannot be considered to be false or fabricated or forged and they are not probablised to be used by two persons for impersonation or cheating and the petitioner running his profession or avocation under the title “Naidu Associates and Arbitrators” is not shown to be irregular or illegal in any manner and similarly, though it is true that the description of the petitioner by himself for various purposes is not uniform but discrepant without any claim of any change in his original name being duly effected, the misdescription of himself by the petitioner or the inaccuracy in naming himself or his father cannot be deduced from the material relied on by the second respondent to be with an intention to cheat or with fraudulent or dishonest intention. While there is no use of any forged or fabricated or false document as genuine, leave alone any fraudulent or dishonest intention in such use, any alleged offence under Section 471 of the Indian Penal Code cannot even remotely be considered to be possible of being established against the petitioner. Similarly, any element of deceiving any person or fraudulently or dishonestly inducing any person to deliver any property or to retain any property or to do or omit to do anything, which is likely to cause damage or harm to the deceived person in body, mind, reputation or property to constitute cheating is not even remotely made out by the allegations on record and if there was no use of any document for the purpose of so cheating anybody, no offence under Section 468 IPC can be attributed in any manner to the petitioner, even apart from the absence of any forged or false or fabricated document being involved in any manner. While the inherent jurisdiction of this court is available only in the rarest of rare cases to be exercised with great care, caution and circumspection, on the facts made out from the material relied on by the second respondent himself, any continuance of the criminal proceedings may amount to abuse of process of court. While the petitioner brought to himself such a situation by describing himself and his father differently on different occasions, any such misdescription or inaccuracy cannot amount to the commission of any offence even prima facie, even if the allegations of the second respondent are taken and accepted in entirety at their face value. The criminal petition has to, therefore, succeed. In the result, the further proceedings in C.C.No.1870 of 2008 on the file of the Court of III Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, against the petitioner are quashed and the Criminal Petition is allowed. _____________________ G. BHAVANI PRASAD, J Date: 22-09-2009 Ksn [1] AIR 1992 SC 604