HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA CRIMINAL PETITION No. 4777 OF 2008 DATED 19th Octobe, 2011 BETWEEN Adari Ramakrishnarao and ors …….Petitioners and The State of AP, rep. Sub Inspector of Police, Anakapalli Town, Town PS, Anakapalli, Visakhapatnam Dist. And ors ……Respondent HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA CRIMINAL PETITION No. 4777 OF 2008 ORDER: This Criminal Petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is filed seeking to quash FIR No. 312 of 2005 pending on the file of the Station House Officer, Police Station, Anakapalli Town, Visakhapatnam District. The second respondent, who is working as a Mandal Revenue Officer, Anakapalli, lodged a complaint with the first respondent-police against the petitioners, stating that the third petitioner had produced two land valuation certificates purported to have been issued by the Mandal Revenue Officer, Anakapalli in respect of an extent of Ac.0.32 cents each in Sy.Nos. 472/6 and 472/8 of Cherlopalli Khamdan, Anakapalli, as a security for obtaining loan; and that the Branch manager, Indian Bank, Anakapalli, third respondent, had sent the aforesaid two certificates to the Mandal Revenue Officer, Anakapalli, for verification as to the genuineness of the same; and that on verification of the relevant records in the office of the MRO, it was found that the signature of the Mandal Revenue Officer, Anakapalli, on the said two certificates was found not tallying with the signature of the Mandal Revenue Officer, Anakapalli during the relevant period and the seal of the office of the MRO appearing on the said two land valuation certificates is not the seal being used in the MRO office and that the said two certificates do not relate to the office of the MRO; and that on such finding of the two valuation certificates are forged and fabricated documents which were found to be used for the purpose of defrauding the bank in obtaining the loan; and that the Bank Manger was informed as such and the MRO lodged a complaint against the petitioners for taking appropriate action. On the other hand, it is the case of the petitioners that: the petitioners 1 and 2 have applied for loan of Rs.25,00,000/- under Khadi Village and Industries Commission Scheme introduced by the Government for establishing M/s. Kumar Poultry Feeds and M/. Pawani Cattle Feeds, respectively. Petitioners 1 and 2, apart from the title deeds of petitioner 3, title deeds of P.Seeta Mahalakshmi Naidu and his wife were also furnished as security to the loan to be obtained by them. Thereafter the third respondent sanctioned loan of Rs.11.97 lakhs and Rs.11.78 lakhs to petitioners 1 and 2 respectively. It was the specific allegation of the petitioners that the third respondent proposed to give Rs.10,93,000/- to A.1 and Rs.10.30,000/- to A.2, after deducting Rs.2,52,000/- for his formalities (bribe), to which, the petitioners did not agree. Thus the petitioners have sent a notice to the Head Office of the Indian Bank indicating the above illegal demand of the third respondent and non-release of the loan thereon. After some correspondence, the Regional Manager of Indian Bank gave a reply on 13.08.2005 asking the petitioners to approach the third respondent for availing loan. It is the further allegation of the petitioners that though their security creditors have not obtained any land valuation certificates, but the third respondent has created the fabricated land value certificates to trouble the petitioners in obtaining loan. The petitioners further stated that as the third respondent was causing delay in sanctioning the loans, they have sustained heavy loss and aggrieved by the same, they have approached the Consumer Forum and filed cases vide CD Nos. 931 and 929 of 2005 before the District Consumer Forum, Visakhapatnam claiming damages and compensation. Aggrieved by the same, the third respondent implicated the petitioners in the aforesaid forgery case. The third respondent filed a counter affidavit denying the averments made in the affidavit filed in support of the petition. He specifically denied the demanding of bribe through the staff member, namely Mr.Satish. It is stated that after the loan was sanctioned, petitioners 1 and 2 demanded the release of the loan amount by way of cash without depositing the margin money on their own, which is mandatory for releasing the loan amounts. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioners moved the District Consumers Forum. While the matters stood thus, he entertained doubt as to the genuineness of the two valuation certificates dated 28.12.2004 while he was in the Circle office of the Indian Bank, the same were referred to the second respondent-MRO for verification. After verification, the MRO reported that the same were forged documents and necessary complaint was lodged with the first respondent-police. He also denied the averment of the petitioners that after receipt of the notice from the District Consumer Form, he had hatched up a plan to implicate the petitioners in a criminal case. Having heard the learned Counsel on either side and gone through the material papers on record, it would be noticeable that several allegations and counter allegations are levelled against each other. When exercising jurisdiction under S. 482 of the Cr.P.C. this Court would not ordinarily embark upon a roving enquiry to find out as to whether the allegations in question are reliable or not; or whether on a reasonable appreciation the accusations would not be sustained. That is the function of the trial Judge. Judicial process should not be an instrument of oppression, or needless harassment. These aspects can be agitated by the petitioners before the trial court by way of their defence. By no stretch of imagination, it can be said that the allegations made in the First Information Report, if taken at its face value and if accepted in its entirety, does not even prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the petitioners. The records constituting Land Valuation Certificates verified by MRO were found against the accused rather cements the conclusion with respect to the existence of a prima facie case against the petitioners. In the case of M. Viswanathan Vs. S.K. Tiles and Potteries P. Ltd., {(2006)12SCC390} the Supreme Court held thus: “……….. The complaint has to be read as a whole. If it appears that on consideration of the allegations in the light of the statement made on oath of the complainant that the ingredients of the offence or offences are disclosed and there is no material to show that the complaint is mala fide, frivolous or vexatious, in that event there would be no justification for interference by the High Court. When an information is lodged at the police station and an offence is registered, then the mala fides of the informant would be of secondary importance. It is the material collected during the investigation and evidence led in court which decides the fate of the accused person. The allegations of mala fides against the informant are of no consequence and cannot by themselves be the basis for quashing the proceedings.” (Emphasis added) Having regard to the law laid down by the Apex Court in the said decision and keeping in mind the fact that the case is under investigation, it would not be proper for this Court to weigh the material on record at the threshold to see whether a case is or is not made out against the accused. There are absolutely no valid or justifiable grounds to exercise the power of this court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the aforesaid crime. The Criminal Petition is accordingly dismissed --------------------------------------------- JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA Dated 19th October, 2011. Msnro