Dr. V.R.K. Krupa Sagar, J.

1. Accused Nos. 3 and 4 in Cr. No. 293 of 2019 of Krishnalanka Police Station, Vijayawada filed this criminal petition under Section 482 of CrPC seeking to quash the FIR against them. The offences alleged against them are under Sections 120(B), 193 and 420 read with 34 IPC.

2. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for respondent No. 1 and Sri K. Sreedhara Murthy, learned counsel for respondent No. 2/de facto complainant and Sri Raviteja Padiri, learned counsel for petitioners submitted their arguments.

3. Point that falls for consideration is:

"Whether registration of First Information Report against the petitioners is abuse of process of Court and would not secure the ends of Justice"

POINT:-

From the arguments advanced on both sides and from the material placed on record by the petitioners herein, the following are undisputed facts.

Sri Singampalli Yella Rao was a sanitary maistry in Vijayawada Municipal Corporation. He retired from service on 30.06.2011 and he has been drawing service pension. His wife was Smt. S.Vijaya Lakshmi. She was a public health worker in Vijayawada Municipal Corporation. She died in harness on 22.04.2018. Those spouses had three children namely Singampalli Srinivasa Rao, Vasapalli Madhavi. They are arraigned in the FIR as A3 and A4. They are the petitioners in the present criminal petition. The other daughter for these spouses is Kumari Singampalli Parsanna Durga.

4. On the death of her mother, Kumari S. Parsanna Durga had applied to the Vijayawada Municipal Corporation seeking for her appointment on compassionate grounds. She submitted all the relevant papers. Accordingly, she was appointed as Gardener and she reported to duty on 31.12.2018. Thereafter, questioning the correctness and questioning the incorrectness of various officers of Vijayawada Municipal Corporation about the manner in which compassionate appointments were made certain news items were published in the newspapers. Pursuant thereto, the authorities at municipal corporation held an enquiry and the enquiring officer furnished a report dated 18.02.2019 indicating certain facts whereunder it was stated that Kumari S.Prasanna Durga obtained compassionate appointment concealing the fact that her father Sri S. Yella Rao has been a service pensioner. Be it noted, Sri S.Yella Rao is accused No. 2. Kumari S.Prasanna Durga was removed from service and she is accused No. 1. Questioning the said order of her removal from service, she filed W.P. No. 7868 of 2019 before this Hon'ble High Court and the same is pending.

5. Additional Commissioner (General) lodged a signed written information before the Station House Officer, Law and Order police station, Krishnalanka, Vijayawada on 06.05.2019. The same was registered as Cr. No. 293 of 2019. FIR was issued. This FIR arraigned A1 to A4. A3 and A4 therein filed the present criminal petition. The contents of the FIR are to the effect that as per the existing norms, a pensioner is treated as an earning member and therefore children of such service pensioner cannot claim appointment by way of compassionate method. That A1/Kumari S. Prasanna Durga concealed these facts and fraudulently obtained the appointment and she had also submitted affidavits of herself and her siblings to suit her purpose and, in that way, Vijayawada Municipal Corporation was cheated.

6. Arguing on behalf of A3 and A4 who are the petitioners herein, the learned counsel submits that the contents of the written information do not indicate the names of these petitioners but in the FIR, they are shown as accused and that is done malafidely and is done with a view to harass them. These petitioners had given "no objection" affidavits in the standard format and they only stated in these affidavits that they had no objection to give this job to their sister/A1. That these petitioners have been living separately and that is evident from the certificate issued by the Mandal Revenue Officer also. That the petitioners never concealed any facts. Newspaper reports are hearsay evidence and that cannot be considered. The allegations in the FIR are vague and ambiguous. Learned counsel submits that the criminal proceedings are maliciously initiated with malafides and permitting investigation would lead to unnecessary harassment to the petitioner and that the averments in the FIR do not constitute any offence against these petitioners. On these submissions, the learned counsel seeks for quashment of FIR as against A3 and A4/petitioners.

7. As against it, for respondent No. 2 a counter affidavit was filed and learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for respondent No. 1 and learned counsel for respondent No. 2 submitted that in terms of Circular memo No. 3548/Ser.G/A2/2010-8, G.A.(Ser.G) Dept, dated 24.03.2012 dependent children of a Government pensioner cannot be considered for appointment under the scheme of compassionate appointment since a pensioner is treated to be an earning member. It is argued that all the accused filed affidavits stating that there are no earning members in the family though they all knew that A2 is a pensioner and is thus an earning member. Thus, false affidavits were filed by the petitioners. It is further argued that the petitioners in their affidavits categorically stated that they are bound by the rules and regulations of the Vijayawada Municipal Corporation. Having so stated they cannot now turn around and say anything contrary to it. Learned counsel submits that the factual position pleaded by the petitioners is to be verified by investigating into the offences alleged in the FIR and this is not a case for quashment. They further argued that known information was suppressed and false information was furnished and accordingly the accused were able to secure employment for one who was not eligible and thus their acts fall within the ambit of Section 420 IPC and in such cases this Court should not interfere with while exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC. Learned counsel for respondent No. 2 cited M/s. Suryalakshmi Cotton Mills Ltd V. M/s. Rajvir Industries Ltd AIR 2008 SC 1683 [LQ/SC/2008/37] . In that case while determining the purport of Section 482 CrPC, their Lordships stated that even the plausible defence raised by an accused should not be taken into consideration while High Court exercises powers under Section 482 CrPC. That the power to interfere does not extend to a case where the facts are disputed.

8. Having considered the facts on record and having considered the arguments put forth by learned counsels on both sides, the following aspects are to be stated. In the written information lodged by the Additional Commissioner (General) Vijayawada Municipal Corporation he annexed several documents and requested the police to register the case against Kumari Prasanna Durga/A1 for cheating the institution and getting the job on compassionate ground. It is true that the apparent tenor of the written information makes an allegation only as against A1. However, a keen reading of it and the documents filed with the FIR would show the relevance of A2 as a pensioner and disqualification for the children of such a pensioner in seeking appointment on compassionate grounds. The sworn affidavits filed by these two petitioners before the appointing authority are also placed on record and they do indicate that these petitioners have categorically stated that there are no earning members in their family and that they swore these affidavits in conformity with the rules and regulations of the Vijayawada Municipal Corporation. The affidavits furnished by pensioners served as a cause enabling the Petitioner No. 1 to obtain compassionate appointment. One cannot say that the allegations referred in the FIR do not constitute any offence as against others who are not named in the written information. It is within the competence of police to register written information as a crime and name the suspects in the FIR irrespective of the fact that whether their names are spelt out in the FIR itself or not. At any rate it is incorrect to contend that simply because names of the petitioners are not mentioned in the written information, police are not entitled to name the suspects. Since the facts alleged disclose about concealment of material fact concerning which there was role played by the petitioners this Court finds no merit in any of the contentions raised on behalf of the petitioners. Registration of FIR naming these petitioners/A3 and A4 cannot be called as an abuse of process of Court. This Court finds no material to consider that the FIR was registered against these petitioners either with malafides or for any oblique motive. For these reasons, this Court finds no merit in this petition.

9. Point is answered against the petitioners.

10. In the result, this Criminal Petition is dismissed.

As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, shall stand closed.