1) By this application under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as “the Code”), the applicant seeks quashing of the first information report dated 22.10.2004 registered vide Navapura Police Station I-C.R. No.139 of 2004 against the applicant herein and others for the offences punishable under sections 466, 471, 474, 120(B), 114 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
2) The respondent No.2 herein lodged the above referred first information report against the applicant and other co-accused stating that the applicant herein is the Publisher and Editor of the daily newspaper Savera India Times, the accused No.2 is the Press Director, Vadodara, and the accused No.3 to 8 are employees of the Vadodara Municipal Corporation. It is alleged that accused No.1 and 2 with a view to publish sensational news in their newspaper wanted to establish that there is rampant corruption in the Vadodara Municipal Corporation and with the malafide intention hatched a conspiracy along with other co-accused. In furtherance of the said conspiracy, the accused No.2 met the other accused and requested the accused No.4 to register a false case of death and issue a certificate in respect thereof.
Initially, the accused No.4 demanded a sum of Rs.10,000/- but ultimately it was agreed that such bogus document would be issued upon payment of Rs.5,000/-. The accused No.2 paid Rs.2,000/- to the accused No.4 in respect of the said transaction, and the remaining amount of Rs.3,000/- was to be paid upon issuance of the certificate. According to the accused No.2, the remaining Rs.3,000/- was paid to the accused No.4 pursuant to which a bogus death certificate came to be issued to him. Thereafter he had paid another Rs.100/- and obtained five computerized copies thereof.
It is further alleged that a news item came to be published in the 14th October 2004 edition of Savera India Times in connection with the issuance of the aforesaid death certificate, wherein by publishing a copy of the certificate which had been obtained as aforesaid, allegations were made against the Mayor and the Commissioner of the Vadodara Municipal Corporation, and it was also stated that corruption is going on in the Vadodara Municipal Corporation. It is accordingly alleged by the first informant that a conspiracy has been hatched to defame the office holders of the Corporation and its staff in public. Various other allegations have been made as regards the manner, in which the bogus death certificate had been obtained.
3) Being aggrieved, the applicant seeks quashing of the first information report insofar as he is concerned.
4) Mr. Mitul Shelat, learned advocate for the applicant submitted that all that the applicant herein has done is that he has published a copy of the death certificate obtained by the accused No.2 in his newspaper along with a write up of the manner in which the same was obtained. It was submitted that the document has been issued by the Vadodara Municipal Corporation and that the applicant herein has merely published the report. At no point of time, has the applicant participated in the transaction resulting in the issuance of death certificate nor has he committed any act or omission in respect thereof. It was submitted that publication of the document does not constitute use of the document as contemplated under section 463 of the Indian Penal Code.
4.1) Inviting the attention of the court to the sections of the Indian Penal Code that have been invoked against the applicant and the other co- accused, viz. sections 466, 471, 474, 120(B), 114 and 34, it was submitted out that insofar as the applicant herein is concerned, none of the sections would be attracted. It was submitted that section 466 IPC pertains to forgery of record of Court or of public register etc. and that there is nothing on record nor can it be said on the averments made in the first information report that the applicant has committed forgery of any document. As regards the offence under section 471, namely, using as genuine a forged document or electronic record, it was submitted that the applicant has not used the document in question either fraudulently or dishonestly, but has merely published the said document, which was issued by the competent officer of the Corporation and, as such, by no stretch of imagination would the provisions of section 471 be attracted. Referring to the offence punishable under section 474 IPC which is constituted upon a person having possession of a document described in section 466 or 467, knowing it to be forged and intending to use it as genuine, the learned counsel submitted that on the averments made in the first information report itself, it is evident that there was no intention on the part of the applicant to use the said document as genuine inasmuch as it has been published in the newspaper itself that a forged document has been issued by the officer of the Corporation. It was contended that since the main provisions are not attracted in the case of the applicant, the provisions of section 120(B), 114 and 34 IPC would also fall to the ground.
4.2) Next it was submitted that the allegation in the first information report is that the applicant has entered into a conspiracy with the other accused to defame the officers of the Corporation; however, all that the applicant has done is that he has published what has undisputedly happened. It was urged that publication of facts is the purpose and duty of any newspaper and that the present first information report is an attempt to prevent publication of newspaper reports against the Vadodara Municipal Corporation. It was submitted that the very certificate issued by the officer of the Corporation has been published by the applicant. The attention of the court was invited to the unreported decision of the Delhi High Court in the case of Aniruddha Bahal v. State (NCP Delhi), rendered on 24th September 2010 in Crl.M.C. 2793 of 2009, wherein the court was dealing with the question as to whether a citizen of this country has a right to conduct such sting operation to expose the corruption by using agent provocateurs and to bring to the knowledge of common man, corruption at high strata of society. The court held that it is the in-built duty of every citizen to strive for a corruption free society and must expose corruption whenever it comes to his or her knowledge and try to remove corruption at all levels more so at higher levels of management of the State. The court further held thus: “in order to expose corruption at higher level and to show to what extent the State managers are corrupt, acting as agent provocateurs does not amount to committing a crime.” The court has further held that the person who had carried out sting operation to expose corruption by using agent provocateurs and to bring to the knowledge of common man, corruption at high strata of society did not commit any offence and, accordingly, quashed the charge-sheet and order of taking cognizance and issuing summons against the applicant therein. Attention was invited to the fact that the Supreme Court had dismissed the special leave petition filed against the said judgment of the Delhi High Court, both on the ground of limitation as well as on merits.
4.3) It was argued that thus, the applicant has brought into public domain certain facts based on documents which have emanated from the office of the Corporation. The applicant herein has merely reported the event and has neither participated, motivated nor engineered the same. Therefore, on a reading of the first information report no case is made out qua the applicant herein and that the filing of first information report is merely an attempt to prevent the facts regarding corruption coming out in the public domain. It was, accordingly, submitted that on a plain reading of the first information report, when no offence can be said to have been made out, the same is required to be quashed qua the applicant herein.
5) Mr. Pranav G. Desai, learned advocate appearing for the respondent No.3 submitted that the respondent No.3 stands by the allegations made in the first information report, which satisfies the ingredients of the offences alleged and as such no case is made out for quashing the same.
6) Ms. Krina Calla, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, supported the allegations made in the first information report. She, however, stated that upon a perusal of the investigation papers, no link has been established between the applicant and the other co-accused.
7) On a perusal of the first information report, it is apparent that the sole allegation against the
Corporation in connection with issuance of bogus death certificates. The said news report is based upon a sting operation carried out by the accused No.2, who had offered payment of an amount for the purpose of obtaining a bogus death certificate in his own name, in other words, or procuring his own death certificate. Insofar as the applicant herein is concerned, reading the first information report in its entirety, there is nothing whatsoever to indicate his involvement in any manner, in obtaining the bogus death certificate. What is attributed to the applicant is that he has published the fact regarding issuance of the bogus death certificate by the officers of the Corporation with a view to defame the officers of the Corporation and with the object of publishing sensational news.
8) As noticed earlier, the offences alleged against the applicant and other co-accused are under sections 466, 471, 474, 120(B), 114 and 34 of Indian Penal Code. Section 466 IPC bears the heading “Forgery of record of Court or of public register, etc.” and lays down that whoever forges a document, purporting to be a record or proceeding of or in a Court of Justice, or a register of birth, baptism, marriage or burial, or a register kept by a public servant as such, or a certificate or document purporting to be made by a public servant in his official capacity, or an authority to institute or defend a suit, or to take any proceedings therein, or to confess a judgment, or power of attorney shall be punished there under. In the facts of the present case, apparently there is no forgery of any document, inasmuch as the document in question has been issued by the authority authorized to do so. However, it is true that the same is based on false facts and though genuine is a false certificate. However, insofar as the applicant is concerned, he has no role to play in the issuance of the death certificate, and as such section 466 IPC would clearly not be applicable to him. Section 471 IPC deals with “Using as genuine a forged document” and lays down that whoever fraudulently or dishonestly uses as genuine any document which he knows or has reason to believe to be a forged document, shall be punished in the same manner as if he had forged such document. Adverting to the facts of the present case it has been alleged in the first information report that after obtaining the bogus death certificate a sensational news item came to be published along with a copy of the death certificate exposing corruption in the concerned office of the Corporation. Thus, the said news item itself indicates that the death certificate is a forged and fabricated document, which has been obtained with a view to expose corruption in the Municipal Corporation. It is not even the case of the first informant that the bogus death certificate has been used as genuine. Under the circumstances, on the allegations made in the first information report the said section has clearly been wrongly invoked. Similarly, section 474 IPC which deals with the offence of having in ones possession a document described in section 466 or 467, knowing it to be forged and intending to use it as genuine, would also not be attracted, as on the allegations made in the first information report, it cannot be said that the applicant had any intention of using the fabricated death certificate as genuine. Reading the first information report in its entirety, the allegations made therein, in no manner disclose any connection between the applicant and the other co- accused so as to attract the provisions of Sections 120(B), 114 and 34 of Indian Penal Code.
9) In the aforesaid premises, it is apparent that the ingredients of none of the offences alleged are satisfied insofar as the applicant herein is concerned. Under the circumstances, when no offence is disclosed qua the present applicant, continuance of the prosecution qua him would amount to an abuse of the process of law. This is, therefore, a fit case for invoking inherent powers under section 482 of the Code for quashing the first information report insofar as the applicant herein is concerned.
10) For the foregoing reasons, the application succeeds and, is accordingly, allowed. The first information report dated 22.10.2004 registered vide Navapura Police Station I-C.R. No.139 of 2004, is hereby quashed and set aside qua the applicant herein alone. Rule is made absolute accordingly.
(HARSHA DEVANI, J.)
Vahid