THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJU CRIMINAL PETITION No.7603 of 2009 BETWEEEN: 1. Mr.L.Balarami Reddy & 11 others. … Petitioner AND 1. State of A.P. & another. … Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL PETITION No.7603 of 2009 ORDER: The petitioners 1 to 12/A1 to A7, A9 to A11, A13 and A14 are accused of offences punishable under Sections 420, 465, 468, 471, 193, 192, 501(b), 196, 199, 500, 120(b) I.P.C. in Crime No.148 of 2009 of Chinnachowk Police Station of Kadapa District. Private complaint filed by the 2nd respondent was referred to the Police by the Magistrate for investigation under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. The 2nd respondent was Manager in Rayalaseema Grameena Bank, which is now renamed as Andhra Pragathi Grameena Bank. Subsequently, he was deputed as Managing Director in Rayalaseema Farmers Service Co-operative Society Limited, Devunikadapa. Thereafter, the 2nd respondent landed in troubled waters and there was departmental enquiry resulting in launching of disciplinary proceedings against him. After domestic enquiry, the 2nd respondent was removed from his service. The 2nd respondent is stated to have filed W.P.No.854 of 1995 in this Court challenging his removal from service. The 2nd respondent’s counsel says that the said Writ Petition is still pending in this Court. While so, surcharge proceedings were started against the 2nd respondent and the loanees under Section 51 of the A.P.Co-operative Societies Act before the Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Kadapa in R.C.No.5979/89G. When the Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies by his order dated 08.11.1996 proposed civil or criminal action against the 2nd respondent/defacto complainant, he approached the Co- operative Appellate Tribunal by way of CTA.No.631 of 1996 against the said proposal. The A.P. Co-operative Tribunal, Hyderbad by order dated 13.07.1999 remitted the case to the Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Kadapa for conducting de novo enquiry. After de novo enquiry, the Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Kadapa passed order absolving the 2nd respondent/de facto complainant of all charges and ordered for dropping further action in the matter, by order dated 29.12.2005. In the said order, the Deputy Registrar noticed that there was tampering of records relating to the society. Encouraged by the said observation of Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies, the 2nd respondent came up with the present private complaint before the Magistrate, which ultimately was registered as a criminal case in the police station. 2. A1 is chairman of the Grameena Bank who is the appointing as well as disciplinary authority for the 2nd respondent when he was in service. A2 was the Preliminary Enquiry Officer. A3 is the successor chairman in the place of A1. A6, A11, A8, A9, A10, A13, A14, A4, A7 and A12 were management witnesses in the domestic enquiry/disciplinary proceedings which resulted in removal of the 2nd respondent from service. As pointed out earlier, subject matter relating to removal of the 2nd respondent from service is pending in this Court in W.P.No.854 of 1995. It is gravemen of the 2nd respondent’s allegations that all the accused conspired together and produced false, fabricated and tampered documents in disciplinary proceedings against him and gave false evidence against him and on behalf of the management. The entire allegations in the report/complaint of the 2nd respondent do not reveal any offence under Section 420 I.P.C. in as much as there is no allegation of any of the accused practicing any deception against him making him to part with any property or valuable security in pursuance of the said deception. There are absolutely no allegations of any of the petitioners/accused indulging in publication of false or defamatory imputations with an intention to defame the 2nd respondent. The entire complaint is with regard to alleged giving false evidence in the domestic enquiry. There are no allegations of the accused indulging any activity defaming the 2nd respondent. Insofar as A5 is concerned, he did simply messenger work by way of producing the documents during domestic enquiry. Except production of documents, he had absolutely no role in the domestic enquiry. 3. Section 195(1) Cr.P.C. reads as follows: “195. Prosecution for contempt of lawful authority of public servants, for offences against public justice and for offences relating to documents given in evidence (1) No court shall take cognizance- (a) (i) of any offence punishable under Sections 172 to 188 (both inclusive) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860(45 of 860); or (ii) of any abetment of, or attempt to commit, such offence; or (iii) of any criminal conspiracy to commit such offence, Except on the complaint in writing of the public servant concerned or of some other public servant to whom he has administratively subordinate; (b) (i) of any offence punishable under any of the following sections of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), namely, Sections 193 to 196 (both inclusive), 199, 200, 205 to 211 (both inclusive) and 228, when such offence is alleged to have been committed in, or in relation to, any proceeding in any court; or (ii) of any offence described in section 463, or punishable under section 471, section 475 or section 476 of the said Code, when such offence is alleged to have been committed in respect of a document produced or given in evidence in a proceeding in any court; or (iii) of any criminal conspiracy to commit, or attempt to commit, or the abetment of, any offence specified in sub-clause (i) or sub-clause(ii).” 4. Section 195(1)(b)(i) and (ii) is applicable in respect of offences punishable under Sections 193 to 196, 199, 200, 205 to 211 as well as Sections 463, 471, 475, 476 IPC. Placing reliance on Iqbal Singh Marwah Vs. Meenakshi Marwah[1], it is contended by the 2nd respondent’s counsel that Section 195(1)(b)(ii)Cr.P.C. would be attracted only when the offences enumerated therein have been committed with respect to a document after it has been produced or given in evidence in a proceeding in any Court i.e. during the time when the document was in custodia legis. Insofar as clause (i) of Section 195(1)(b) Cr.P.C. is concerned, it is a bar for taking cognizance by a Magistrate without the complaint being received from appropriate Court or the officer concerned. The proceedings in domestic enquiry/disciplinary proceedings are not judicial proceedings in any Court. They are administrative proceedings being launched under the relevant disciplinary provisions of the organization/institution in which the 2nd respondent was working. Insofar as the proceedings before the Deputy Registrar and the Co-operative Appellate Tribunal under Sections 51and 60(1) of the A.P.Co-operative Societies Act are concerned, they are the judicial proceedings being conducted by the respective officer or Tribunal under statutory provisions. The Deputy Registrar during the proceedings under Section 51 of the A.P.Co-opearative Societies Act if felt that there was any tampering of record, then it is for the said officer to launch any prosecution against the persons concerned. It is contended that the tampering of records was done outside the proceedings under the A.P.Co-operative Societies Act and not when the documents were in the custody of the Deputy Registrar. The 2nd respondent intended to rely upon the proceedings under Section 51 of the A.P. Co-operative Societies Act as defence for the disciplinary proceedings resulting in his removal from service. Insofar as the domestic enquiry/disciplinary proceedings are concerned, there is no finding that any of the witnesses perjured or any of the documents produced were tampered by any of the officers or staff of the society or the bank. To repeat, validity of removal of the 2nd respondent from service is subject matter in pending writ proceedings before this Court. Simply because some of the accused gave evidence on behalf of the management and one of the accused produced documents before the Enquiry Officer as messenger and some of the accused gave enquiry report finding the 2nd respondent guilty in disciplinary proceedings and finally the chairman of the bank passed removal order of the 2nd respondent from bank service, it cannot be said that all of them conspired together for the disciplinary proceedings against him. In the absence of any specific allegations against each of the persons who are stated to have actually tampered the records for any benefit either to themselves or to harm the 2nd respondent, the 2nd respondent cannot maintain a criminal case on vague, general and sporadic allegations against all the staff and officers who participated in the domestic enquiry against him. On perusal of the allegations in the complaint, this Court is satisfied that the 2nd respondent instituted the complaint before the Magistrate with a view to wreck vengeance against the accused who gave evidence against him and who passed the removal order against him. This is nothing but sheer abuse of process of law and it cannot be permitted to go on. 5. In the result, the Criminal Petition is allowed quashing FIR in Crime No.148 of 2009 of Chinnachowk Police Station, Kadapa. _____________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU, J Dated: 19.04.2011 ysk THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL PETITION No.7603 of 2009 DATED: 19.04.2011 ysk [1] AIR 2005 SUPREME COURT 2119(1)