THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.RAVI SHANKAR CRIMINAL PETITION NO.6392 OF 2008 Date: 16.11.2011 Between: K.Jyothi …..Petitioner And The State of A.P., rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad …..Respondent THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.RAVI SHANKAR CRIMINAL PETITION NO.6392 OF 2008 ORDER: Heard Sri M.Rama Rao, counsel appearing on behalf of learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor. 2. The petitioner herein i.e. K.Jyothi is shown as the accused No.7 in C.C.No.1584 of 2006 on the ﬁle of the Court of the Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Karimnagar (trial court). The charge-sheet shows that there are in all 16 accused. It further reads that the oﬀences punishable under Sections 417 and 471 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) are alleged against accused Nos.1, 5, 7 and 8 while the other accused are charge-sheeted for various other offences. 3. The main contention of Sri M.Rama Rao is that there is no any complaint from any person that the B.Ed. certiﬁcate of the petitioner is a forged one and therefore the case against her should be quashed. It is true that the charge- sheet does not read that the petitioner obtained a forged B.Ed. certiﬁcate. The relevant portion of the charge-sheet which shows the complicity of this petitioner reads as follows. “From the facts collected in the investigation done it is established that the A.2 is the father of A.3, they are the residents of Vizag, A.2 was working as Superintendent, in the press and publications of Andhra University, Visakhapatnam. A.1 is resident of Jyothinagar, Karimnagar. The A.1 developed acquaintance the A.2 and A.3 and at the ﬁrst instance he obtained a fake B.Ed. certiﬁcate from A.2 and A.3 and used it as genuine and got employment as Teacher in D.S.C. Examination and was posted to Gopalraopet Village. Subsequently, he extended his illegal acts, arranged fake and forged B.Ed. certiﬁcates to A.5 with mediation of A.4, A.7 with the mediation of A.12 with the mediation of A.10 and A.11 directly to A.8, A.9, A.13, A.15 and 16 by taking demanded amount. He brought all the above certiﬁcates from A.2 and A.3 on the name of the Andhra University. In the month of December, the A.1 had collected an amount of Rs.22,000/- from the L.W.1 by making a false promise to provide correspondence course certificate of B.Ed. course. Neither the accused provided B.Ed. certiﬁcate nor returned money to him. Thereby the accused had cheated the L.W.1. On investigation the prima facie against alleged accused No.6, 14 and 17 have not been established, hence they have not been charged. Above portion in the charge-sheet clearly shows the role attributed to the petitioner or the complicity of the petitioner and it says that the petitioner acted as a mediator with the other accused and acted in collusion for distribution of the forged B.Ed. certificates. 4. Sri M.Rama Rao says that no complaint was given against the petitioner by anybody even in respect of above acts attributed to the petitioner and therefore the case should be quashed. It is diﬃcult to accept this contention. It may be noted that once a case is registered against some persons, the police in the course of investigation may ﬁnd that some others are also involved in the criminal oﬀence and if they ﬁnd so, they are entitled under the law to prosecute such oﬀenders also. In the present case, even though there may not be any complaint against the petitioner, still it was for the police to include her in the case if their investigation disclose her complicity also. It is diﬃcult to decide in this criminal petition about the truthfulness or otherwise of the acts attributed to the petitioner and this petition cannot be entertained and accordingly the relief for quashing the F.I.R. is rejected. 5. Sri M.Rama Rao says that the petitioner is now working as Headmistress in some school and she cannot attend the court for every date of hearing. In the circumstances, the presence of the petitioner for every date of hearing before the trial Court is dispensed with subject of- course to the power of the trial court to summon her presence as and when it considers necessary. It will be open for the petitioner to make an application for her discharge before the trial court, if she is so advised. 6. This criminal petition is accordingly disposed of. ___________________________ JUSTICE N.RAVI SHANKAR 16th November, 2011 Tjmr THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.RAVI SHANKAR CRIMINAL PETITION NO.6392 OF 2008 DATE: 16.11.2011