Delhi HC Refuses To Quash Criminal Case Against Man Accused Of Posing As PMO Official For Availing Tirumala Tirupati Temple Darshan

The Delhi High Court refused to quash a criminal case against man accused of posing as PMO official for availing facilities like darshan, accommodation and other hospitality at Tirumala temple.

observed that it is not always possible to have direct evidence for criminal conspiracy under Section 120-B of the IPC, and the same may have to be inferred from circumstantial evidence.

In that context, the Bench of Justice Navin Chawla observed that, "It is not always possible to have direct evidence for such conspiracy and the same may have to be inferred from the circumstantial evidence. The prosecution, in my view, prima facie has met the test for framing of the charges against the petitioner."

Counsel Vishwendra Verma, along with others, appeared for the petitioner, while SPP Prasanta Varma, along with others, appeared for the respondent.

Keshavan was accused of offences under Sections 120B, 419, and 420 of the Indian Penal Code, related to a scam involving impersonation and cheating. The allegations involved Keshavan and Pramod Kumar Singh, who made fraudulent calls to government officials in Pondicherry and Andhra Pradesh's Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanam Board.

In these calls, Singh posed as the Principal Secretary to the Prime Minister's Office, seeking government vehicles, accommodation, and darshan facilities for a person named Vivek K (Keshavan). Keshavan contended that he played no role in the scam, asserting that Singh used his name and number without his knowledge to avail government facilities. He emphasized that he never personally made any calls seeking favours.

Keshavan claimed he gained no material benefits from these alleged acts. However, the Central Bureau of Investigation argued that there was clear evidence of government officials contacting Keshavan's phone number to confirm his visit to Pondicherry. They also presented evidence regarding the provision of a vehicle and accommodation for Keshavan in Pondicherry.

The Court observed that, "The effect of non-production of the vehicle register or the name of the driver shall have to be considered by the learned Trial Court on appreciating the other evidence led before it. It would be too premature for this Court to, at the present stage, hold that in the absence thereof, the charge against the petitioner must fail. The charge against the petitioner can always be proved through other evidence if found reliable."

The petition was dismissed with costs of Rs. 35,000/- to be used by the Delhi State Legal Services Authority for providing counselling/psychological support to the POCSO Victims requiring such assistance.

Appearances:

Petitioner: Counsels Vishwendra Verma, Shivali, Archit Verma

Respondent: SPP Prasanta Varma, Pankaj Kumar, Pragya Verma, Rakesh Kumar Palo

Cause Title: Vivek Keshavan vs Central Bureau of Investigation

Click here to read/download the Judgment