01. This Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioner-accused seeking to quash the proceedings against him in C.C.No.309 of 2022 pending on the file of the learned Judicial First Class Magistrate, Nakrekal, (for short ‘the learned trial Court’) registered for the offence under Section 419 of the Indian Penal Code (for short ‘IPC’).

02. Heard Sri D.V.Sitharama Murthy, learned Senior Counsel, representing Sri Aruva Karthik, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri M.Ramachandra Reddy, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State as well as Sri V.T. Kalyan, learned counsel for the respondent No.2. Perused the record.

03(a). The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner-accused is an agent of various insurance companies, namely LIC, ReliGear, and Oriental Insurance, and is also employed as a Lecturer at Vasavi Degree College, Nakrekal. It is alleged that the petitioner-accused committed the offence of cheating by personation and used forged documents as genuine with an intention to claim the Postal Life Insurance amount of one Sri Challa Saidulu, S/o Challa Bhujangam, who had died in a road accident. After investigation, the Police filed a charge sheet alleging that the petitioner-accused had committed offences punishable under Sections 409, 419, 420, 465, 468, and 471 of the IPC, and noted therein that a supplementary charge sheet would be filed if further evidence were collected.

                  03(b). Subsequently, the Police filed an additional charge sheet stating that the petitioner-accused had no connection with the alleged acts of impersonation, forgery, or the purported mismatch of the deceased’s signatures, and that only an offence under Section 419 IPC appeared to be made out. Thereafter, the Police filed a final report stating that the “action abated and no charges frame” wherein it was further mentioned that the deceased, during his lifetime, had taken several insurance policies and used to affix both his old and new signatures.

04(a). Learned counsel for the petitioner-accused submitted that the petitioner has no connection whatsoever with the alleged offences. It is contended that the learned Magistrate had taken cognizance of the charge sheet filed by the Police, wherein it was stated that a supplementary charge sheet would be filed upon collection of further evidence, and the case was numbered as C.C. No.309 of 2022. Subsequently, an additional charge sheet was filed by the Police, clearly stating that the petitioner-accused was not involved in the alleged mismatch of the signatures and that all the earlier charges stood dropped.

                  04(b). It is further submitted that this Court, by order dated 12.01.2024 passed in CRL.P.No.564 of 2024, directed the learned trial Court to take into consideration the final report filed in June 2023. However, the learned trial Court, by order dated 23.05.2024 in CRL.M.P. No.1011 of 2024, held that it had no power to review its earlier order taking cognizance, and while refusing to accept the final report, disposed of the petition. It is further submitted that the learned Magistrate is not divested of the power to consider a final report or a supplementary report merely because cognizance had already been taken on the earlier charge sheet.

05. With the above submissions, while praying to quash the criminal proceedings against the petitioner-accused relied upon a decision of the Honourable Supreme Court in Rama Chaudhary v. State of Bihar (Criminal Appeal No. of 2009 (Arising out of S.L.P.(CRL) No.370 of 2009) wherein at Paragraph Nos.7 to 11 it was held that:

                  “7) Sub-section (1) of Section 173 of Cr.P.C. makes it clear that every investigation shall be completed without unnecessary delay. Sub-section (2) mandates that as soon as the investigation is completed, the officer in charge of the police station shall forward to a Magistrate empowered to take cognizance of the offence on a police report, a report in the form prescribed by the State Government mentioning the name of the parties, nature of information, name of the persons who appear to be acquainted with the circumstances of the case and further particulars such as the name of the offences that have been committed, arrest of the accused and details about his release with or without sureties. Among other sub-sections, we are very much concerned about sub- section (8) which reads as under:-

                  "(8) Nothing in this section shall be deemed to preclude further investigation in respect of an offence after a report under sub-section (2) has been forwarded to the Magistrate and, where upon such investigation, the officer in charge of the police station obtains further evidence, oral or documentary, he shall forward to the Magistrate a further report or reports regarding such evidence in the form prescribed; and the provisions of sub-sections (2) to (6) shall, as far as may be, apply in relation to such report or reports as they apply in relation to a report forwarded under sub-section (2)."

                  8) A mere reading of the above provision makes it clear that irrespective of report under sub-section (2) forwarded to the Magistrate, if the officer in-charge of the police station obtains further evidence, it is incumbent on his part to forward the same to the Magistrate with a further report with regard to such evidence in the form prescribed.

                  9) The above said provision also makes it clear that further investigation is permissible, however, reinvestigation is prohibited. The law does not mandate taking of prior permission from the Magistrate for further investigation. Carrying out a further investigation even after filing of the charge-sheet is a statutory right of the police. Reinvestigation without prior permission is prohibited. On the other hand, further investigation is permissible.

                  10) From a plain reading of sub-section (2) and sub-section (8) of Section 173, it is evident that even after submission of police report under sub-section (2) on completion of investigation, the police has a right to "further" investigation under sub-section (8) of Section 173 but not "fresh investigation" or "reinvestigation". The meaning of "Further" is additional; more; or supplemental. "Further" investigation, therefore, is the continuation of the earlier investigation and not a fresh investigation or reinvestigation to be started ab initio wiping out the earlier investigation altogether. Sub- section (8) of Section 173 clearly envisages that on completion of further investigation, the investigating agency has to forward to the Magistrate a "further" report and not fresh report regarding the "further" evidence obtained during such investigation.

                  11) As observed in Hasanbhai Valibhai Qureshi vs. State of Gujarat and Others, (2004) 5 SCC 347, the prime consideration for further investigation is to arrive at the truth and do real and substantial justice. The hands of investigating agency for further investigation should not be tied down on the ground of mere delay. In other words, the mere fact that there may be further delay in concluding the trial should not stand in the way of further investigation if that would help the court in arriving at the truth and do real and substantial as well as effective justice.”

06. On the other hand, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State-respondent No.1 as well as the learned counsel for the respondent No.2 contended that there are triable issues and factual aspects to be examined by the learned trial Court and it is not a fit case to quash the proceedings against the petitioner at this juncture and the matter is to be decided after conducting trial by the learned trial Court and prayed to dismiss this Criminal Petition.

07. Having regard to the submissions made on either side and upon a perusal of the material available on record, it is evident that both the supplementary charge sheet and the final report unequivocally exonerate the petitioner-accused. The record clearly discloses that the additional charge sheet filed in May 2023 categorically states that the petitioner-accused had no involvement in the alleged acts of impersonation, forgery, or in any manner connected with the purported mismatch of the signatures of the deceased. Furthermore, the final report dated 18.05.2023 concludes that no offence is made out against the petitioner and accordingly recommends that the action be abated.

08. It is a well-settled principle of law that a learned Magistrate cannot disregard a supplementary report filed in exercise of the statutory power under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C. The learned trial Court, in refusing to consider the final report on the erroneous premise that doing so would amount to a “review,” acted contrary to the mandate of Section 173(8) Cr.P.C. Once the investigating agency itself asserts that the petitioner-accused is not involved in the alleged offences, the continuation of proceedings becomes untenable, unless there exists any contrary material against the petitioner-accused, which is conspicuously absent in the present case. When the Police, upon further investigation, conclude that no charge is made out against the petitioner, insisting on the continuation of trial would serve no purpose, as the material collected during investigation clearly negates the allegations.

09. The offence of cheating by personation requires specific material to substantiate that the petitioner-accused pretended to be another person and thereby induced the delivery of property. The final report unequivocally records that no such act was committed and that the deceased himself had been using different signatures. Thus, the essential ingredients necessary to constitute the offence under Section 419 IPC are absent. When the entire investigative material exonerates the petitioner, compelling him to undergo the ordeal of trial would amount to an abuse of the process of law.

10. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case and considering the legal principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, this Court is of the considered opinion that the continuation of the criminal proceedings against the petitioner-accused would amount to an abuse of the process of law, and the same is liable to be quashed.

11. Accordingly, this Criminal Petition is allowed and the criminal proceedings against the petitioner-accused in C.C.No.309 of 2022 pending on the file of the learned Judicial First Class Magistrate, Nakrekal, are hereby quashed.

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