HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N. RAVI SHANKAR CRIMINAL PETITION No.5456 of 2011 ORDER:- The point that arises for determination in this petition which is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short Code), is whether there are grounds to quash the FIR in Crime No.114 of 2011 of Annavaram police station which is registered for an offence punishable under Section 469 IPC. The offence Section 469 IPC, it may be noted, deals with an offence of forging a document for the purpose of harming reputation of any party or knowing that such a document is likely to be used for that purpose. The offence is a cognizable one. 2. The petitioner is stated to be Executive Officer of Sri Veera Venkata Satyanarayana Swamy Vari Devasthanam, Annavaram. The de facto complainant who is the second respondent herein is said to be one of the members of the trust board of the said Devasthanam. A copy of the report which is registered as FIR is filed by the petitioner’s counsel in his material papers and it is not in dispute. The version of the de facto complainant is that he has been working as a member of the board of trustees of Devasthanam since about 14 months prior to 28.06.2011 on which date the report has been given by him to the police and ever since then he has been making every effort to expose the corrupt activities of the petitioner in running Devasthanam and he made several representations to the Hon’ble the Chief Minister and other authorities and he also commenced public interest litigation in this court for that purposes. He says that because of his above activities the petitioner and others in Devasthanam developed grudge against him and were waiting for an opportunity to harm his reputation in order to prevent him in his crusade against corruption in the Devasthanam. 3. The further allegation of the de facto complainant is that with that object one Mr.Kantha Rao a native of Tenali town which is also near his native village created the false document in question for the purpose of showing that he (de facto complainant) indulged or is indulging in corrupt practices. A copy of the said document is filed by the second respondent/ de facto complainant in his material papers. The said document purports to have been addressed to one K.Venkateswara Raju, Executive Engineer of Annavaram Devasthanam. A perusal of the said document/letter would show that it reads that under the order of the de facto complainant it has been addressed to the said Venkateswara Raju informing him that a vigilance enquiry was going on against the said Venkateswara Raju and that if he wants to avoid that enquiry or escape from it he should pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- to the de facto complainant and that he would take steps to get the said enquiry dropped. The said document also reads that the de facto complainant is the only person who can get the above Venkateswara Raju out of the vigilance enquiry and the consequent trouble which can arise for him from such enquiry. 4. The further version of the de facto complainant in the FIR is that the aforesaid Kantha Rao has prepared that document and sent it by post from Tenali and that the Executive Officer i.e. the present petitioner who also developed a grudge against him (de facto complainant) actively colluded with the said Kantha Rao is behind him in getting the said document posted from Tenali. It should also be noted here that the said letter/document contains the stamp of the de facto complainant G.Venkatappa Reddy describing him as a Sarpanch of a village near Tenali and the de facto complainant says that this stamp has been forged. It must also be mentioned here that the de facto complainant is the Sarpanch of a village near Tenali but he says that he was on leave during the period when this document/letter was posted. The Annavaram police registered the above report of the de facto complainant as a case in Crime No.114 of 2011 showing both Kantharao and the present petitioner as A-1 and A-2 in the case. 5. Sri C.Padmanabha Reddy, learned Senior Counsel appearing for Sri N.Siva Reddy counsel for the petitioner, argued that the petitioner being an Executive Officer of the rank of a Regional Joint Commissioner of the Endowments Department is a responsible official of that department and he has nothing to do with the document in question and that the de facto complainant deliberately included him in the case. He also pointed out that even if the allegations in the report are read as a whole they would only indicate that the de facto complainant mentioned the name of the petitioner as a culprit only out of suspicion and he has not indicated anything in his report as to how he came to the conclusion that the petitioner is also responsible for the above mischief. On the above pleas the learned Senior Counsel argued that no case is made out against the petitioner and consequently the FIR should be quashed. 6. On the other hand, Sri G.Vasantha Rayudu, the learned counsel appearing for the de facto complainant, pointed out that the petitioner has taken upon himself the task of exposing corruption of the petitioner and other officials in Annavaram Devasthanam and he has also sent several representations to the Chief Minister and the other authorities and has also commenced a public interest litigation to clean the administration of Annavaram Devasthanam and the petitioner is well aware of the same and therefore the allegations of the de facto complainant against him cannot be said to be unfounded. He also filed copies of the representations sent by the de facto complainant to the Hon’ble the Chief Minister and certain news paper cuttings and also a copy of the trust board resolution rejecting the quotation given by a contractor called Balaji Cini Arts Moulding Works, Hyderabad, for certain work relating to assembling a vehicle to disseminate information relating to the deity of Annavaram Devasthanam to show how the corruption is allegedly rampant in the administration of Devasthanam. He pointed out that in the representations submitted by the de facto complainant to the higher authorities he made a mention about the petitioner and his activities and therefore the apprehension or the suspicion expressed by the de facto complainant that the petitioner must also be responsible for creating the aforesaid document which harms the reputation of the de facto complainant can be said to be well founded. 7. Basing on the above pleas Sri Vasantha Rayudu contended that the matter is still at the investigation stage and the police should be allowed to continue the investigation to find out the truth as the allegations disclosed the offence and therefore this is not a fit case for interference under Section 482 of the Code. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor also supported the above stand of the de facto complainant’s counsel. In the light of the above contentions the point is now taken up. 8. The averments in the FIR and the pleas and the contentions raised by both sides on the point have already been set out supra in detail. It is true that the averments in the document or letter as it stands and on the basis of which the FIR was registered on the report of the de facto complainant can be said to harm the reputation of the de facto complainant inasmuch as they prima facie show him in the poor light as a corrupt personality. The copies of the various representations filed by the de facto complainant’s counsel and also the trust board resolution relied upon by him can also be said to show that the de facto complainant is taking steps to fight the alleged corrupt activities going on in the administration of Annavaram Devasthanam. One of the documents filed by the de facto complainant would also show that the petitioner himself has sent a representation to the Principal Secretary (Revenue), Endowments Department, informing him about his version of the matter and pleading his innocence regarding certain news paper reports which showed him in poor light. 9. It should however be noted that whether the officials of Annavaram Devasthanam or others connected with its administration are corrupt or not and if they are corrupt what action should be taken against them and remedy the situation in Annavaram Devasthanam are all questions outside the scope of this petition. What all this court is called upon to look into in this petition as to whether there is sufficient basis for registration of the present case against the petitioner. 10. On the above aspect, a reading of the FIR allegations would show that the de facto complainant’s complaint against the petitioner is based on his suspicion that since he started a crusade against the petitioner the latter is behind this letter. He made certain allegations against Kantharao who is a retired employee on the ground that he is also corrupt and he too developed a grudge against him but that Kantharao is not the petitioner herein and therefore it is not necessary for this court to go into that aspect. 11. Thus the above averments in the FIR support the contention of Sri Padmanabha Reddy. The learned counsel for the de facto complainant could not point out any averment in the FIR to show that there is any reasonable basis in it for registering the case against the petitioner who is the Executive Officer of the Devasthanam. However to support the FIR he relied upon the representations sent by the de facto complainant to the higher authorities against the petitioner and other officials regarding their alleged corruption and pointed out that they constituted the basis. It is difficult to accept this contention. It may be that a fight may be going on between the petitioner and the de facto complainant regarding representations sent to higher authorities, but that by itself is not sufficient to conclude that the petitioner is also responsible for sending the above document against the de facto complainant and to repeat a reading of the entire allegations in the FIR would only show that the de facto complainant’s version against the petitioner is based on suspicion. 12. It is now well settled that this court can interfere to quash an FIR or a charge sheet when the allegations in them read as a whole do not disclose any offence against the named accused. To say that an FIR contains the necessary material, the allegations in it should not only show the ingredients of the offence complained, but should also in a case like this, show some material which prima facie shows the connection of the named accused to the offence. Here the offence alleged is forgery of a document to harm the reputation of a person. Anybody can create a document for that purpose and hence some material should be shown to connect the accused named with the document in question or else anybody can be dragged into a case like this and if it is permitted that would result in avoidable harassment to the named accused. In these circumstances it is difficult to accept the contention of Sri Vasantha Rayudu. 13. Sri Vasantha Rayudu placed reliance upon a decision of the Supreme Court given in State of M.P. v. Awadh Kishore Gupta[1] to support his contention. In the said decision it is laid down that while entertaining a petition under Section 482 of the Code for quashing of proceedings either at the stage of FIR or at the stage of charge sheet it is not permissible for a High Court to appreciate the evidence on record and decide the matter. There is no dispute about this proposition but that is not applicable here. It should be noted that the de facto complainant is merely relying upon representations sent by him and a copy of the trust board resolution and some news paper clippings which have shown the petitioner in poor light. It is true that they may show him in poor light but that by itself cannot be a ground to straightaway conclude that the petitioner is also responsible for the offence complained in the FIR i.e. creating a document in question without there being any basis in it for linking the petitioner to the said document. 14. For the aforesaid reasons I am of the opinion that the FIR against the petitioner should be quashed. Accordingly, this petition is allowed and the FIR insofar as petitioner is concerned is quashed. 15. Parting with the matter it should be noted that if the FIR against the petitioner is quashed, the effect of that would be as if his name is not mentioned in it as an accused. A question may now arise as to what police should do when their investigation into the matter discloses that the petitioner is also responsible for the offence. It is well settled that police can always proceed against accused and add them to a case even if his or their names are not mentioned in the FIR if police investigation discloses their complicity also. In view of this legal position it is made clear that if the police investigation into the matter discloses the complicity of the petitioner also for the offence, the police can proceed against him in accordance with law. ______________________ N. RAVI SHANKAR, J 8th August 2011 CVRK [1] (2004) 1 SCC 691