THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N. RAVISHANKAR CRIMINAL PETITION Nos.5515 and 6358 of 2008 COMMON ORDER: Both these criminal petitions are filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short Code), for quashing the proceedings in C.C.No.157 of 2008 on the ﬁle of the Court of Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kavali (trial court). As the relief is claimed in respect of the same case they are being disposed of by this common order. 2. The point is whether the criminal case is liable to be quashed on the ground of uncertainty for want of particulars of the individuals who committed the oﬀences alleged in the case. 3. To appreciate the point, the circumstances under which these petitions came to be ﬁled should be noted. One Iska Vinay Kumar Reddy has ﬁled the aforesaid C.C.No.157 of 2008 as a private complaint against (i) the Manager and (ii) the Regional Manager of a concern called Shriram City Union Finance of Nellore showing them as A-1 and A-2 and alleging against them oﬀences punishable under Sections 408, 425 and 420 IPC. He did not name the individuals holding the said posts/oﬃces but merely mentioned the said posts. Hence the Manager and the Regional Manager of the above concern have ﬁled Crl.P.No.6358 of 2008 and Crl.P.No.5515 of 2008, respectively, for quashing the case. 4. The contention of the learned counsel for petitioners is that in the complaint which is ﬁled alleging the oﬀences punishable under Sections 408, 425 and 420 IPC the complainant has not named the individuals who have committed the said oﬀences while holding the above posts and consequently for every date of hearing in the case the individuals working in the aforesaid two posts at diﬀerent times are being compelled to attend the court and further nothing is also made clear in the complaint to ﬁnd out as to which individuals committed the oﬀences and therefore the criminal case in question should be quashed for that defect of uncertainty in not naming the individuals who have committed the offences alleged. 5. The learned counsel appearing for the complainant i.e. the second respondent in both the petitions has not been able to show even in this petition as to how the above defect can be cured. In view of the above defect, it may be noted that during every stage in the progress of the case the individuals posted in the above two posts either by transfer or otherwise will be compelled to attend the court and this will lead only to protraction of the proceedings and confusion apart from harassment of such individuals who are posted in the said posts by the management of the above concern from time to time. 6. It should be noted that the law permits that a report about the commission of an oﬀence can be given to police without naming the accused as every ﬁrst informant may not know them. In such a case the concerned police exercising their investigating power under the Code can gather material/ evidence to establish not only the commission of the oﬀences complained to them but also the oﬀenders who committed them and take a decision to prosecute them. However when a complaint is ﬁled before the Magistrate without giving the particulars of the individuals who have committed the oﬀences it would be impossible for the Magistrate to proceed further unless deﬁnite particulars are given to the Magistrate about the individuals who committed the oﬀences as our judicial system is an adversarial system. 7. In similar circumstances this Court in Crl.P.No.7645 of 2007 (The Branch Manager, M/s.Shriram Chits Pvt. Ltd., Kodada, Nalgonda District and another v. State of A.P. and another) by order dated 28.03.2008 quashed a criminal case for want of particulars of the individuals who were the then Branch Manager and Senior Manager of a Chit Fund Company who were arrayed as accused by the names of the posts/oﬃces on the ground that the prosecution suﬀers from uncertainty and indeﬁniteness. That case related to the oﬀences punishable under the A.P. Chit Funds Act, 1971. The same principle applies here also though the oﬀences in the present case are under the Indian Penal Code. For the aforesaid reasons and following the above decision, the present criminal case cannot be allowed to be continued for want of particulars of the individuals who committed the oﬀences alleged. 8. Both the Criminal Petitions are accordingly allowed. It shall however be open for the complainant to pursue his remedies subject of-course to the rules of limitation to prosecute the individuals who according to him committed the oﬀences alleged by him by giving all the particulars. ______________________ N. RAVISHANKAR, J 24th November 2011 CVRK