The High Court · 2025

The State of Telangana, Represented by Public Prosecutor, High Court of Telangana, at Hyderabad. Belle Nadipi Ramulu, S/o Late Balaiah, Aged about 52 years Occ- Agriculture, R/o Kodair Village and Mandal, Mahabubnagar Disrtict. (Respondent No.3 not a necessary party). Petition under Section 528 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to set aside/Quash The impugned order dated 1711212024 passed in Crl.M.P.No.184 ol 2024 inCCNo2'15 of 2017. on thefile of lAdditional Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Kollapur ...Respondent l.A. NO: 1OF 2025 Petition under Section 528 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to stay all further proceedings in order dated 1711212024 passed in Crl.M.P.No.184 of 2024 in C.C No.215 of 2017, on the file of I Additional Judicial Magistrate of First CIass at Kollapur This Petition corning on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri Katika Ravinder Reddy, Advocate for the Petrtioner and the Sri M. Damodar Reddy, Advocate, for the Respondent No.1, and public prosecut, r Respondent No.2, and none appeared for the Respondent Nc 3 on behalf of the The Court made the following: ORDER I THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA CRIMINAL PETITION No.46 OF 2025 ORDER: This Criminal Petition is filed to set aside the order dated

17.12.2024 in Crl.tvl.P.No.184 of 2024in C.C.No.215 of 2017 passed by the learned I Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Kollapur (for short "trial Court").

2. Heard the submissions of Sri Katika Ravinder Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri M.Damodar Reddy, learned counsel for respondent No.1

3. The learned petitioner counsel has submitted that the orders passed by the kial Court are not based on sound reasoning and that the petitioner is not the custodian of the documents required to be produced and that he has taken specific plea in his counter to the petition, mentioning that the document is not in his possession but still the trial Court has ordered him to produce the same. He therefore, prayed to set aside the said order passed by the trial Court.

4. The learned counsel for respondent No.1 has submitted that the main allegation is that accused No.1 has created the document ., i.e. by forging the signature of his son and that h r has sold the property to accused No.2 and that accused Nos 1 and 2 are in possession of the document and that accused i..lo.2 ,s not contesting the matter. He further submitted that accused Nc;.l and 2 are wantonly avoiding the judicial process. He ther: tre prayed to dismiss the petition.

5. Perused the record. 6 The record discloses that there is an irrjuncti:r suit pending between respondent Nos.1 and 3 herein i.e. de fac I complainant has lodged the suit against respondent No.3 herein. I r the said suit, the petitioner is not a party. lt is pertinent to take note tf the fact that the petitioner who is the father of the de facto conr )lainant is not made a party to the suit but the complaint is lodged I r ihe same de faclo complainant against his father and responder I No.3 herein alleging that the sale deed was executed by his father accused No.1 by forging his signatures in favour of accused No.2. Based on the said complaint, C.C.No.215 of 2017 was registered 1e has fited a petition vide Crl.M.P.No.184 of 2024 in the pending r) C No 215 of 2017 under Section 91 of Cr.P.C. with a prayer to seel. production of the document from the accused. The trial Court aftr: hearing both 3 the sides has allowed the said petition. Aggrieved by the said order, the present petition is filed by the accused No.'1.

7. As mentioned above, the quash petitioner herein is the father of respondent No.1/de facfo complainant. The main allegation itself in C.C.No.215 ot 2017 is that the sale deed got executed by him forging the signature of de facto complainant.

8. Section 91 of Cr.P.C. is extracted herein for the sake of reference "91. Summons to produce document or other thing.-(7) Whenever any Court or any officer in charge of a police station considers that the production of any document or other thing is necessary or desirable for the purposes of any investigation, inquiry, trial or other proceeding under this Code by or before such Cou( or officer, such Court may assue a summons, or such officer a written order, to the person in whose possession or power such document or thing is believed to be, requrring him to attend and produce it, or to produce it. at the time and place stated in the summons or order. (2) Any person required under this section merely to produce a document or other thing shall be deemed to have complied with the requisition if he causes such document or thing to be produced rnstead of attending personally to produce the same. (3) Nothing ifl this section shall be deemed- (a) to affect sections 123 and 124 of the lndran Evrdence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872), orthe Bankers'Books Evidence Act 1891 (13of1891).or (b) to apply to a lener, postcard, telegram or other document or any parcel or thing in the custody of the postal or telegraph authonty " I The learned Magistrate has allowed the petition by invoking the powers under Section 91 Cr.P.C. and there is no infirmity in the 4 orders passeC by the learned r'r/agistrate, ttrerefore, rt e same cannot be interfered with, hence, the petition lacks merits

10. lrr the result, the Criminal Petition is dismissed Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shal stand closerj SD/-AHMEI ABDULLAH KHAN ASSII TANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY'/ ;ECTION OFFICER To, 1 The I Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Kollzrl ur. 2. The Station House Officer, Kodair Police Station, Mahabr )bnagar District. 3. Two CCs to the Public Prosecutor, High Court for the Stz t : of Telangana at Hyderabad [ouT] 4 One CC to Sn Katika Ravinder Reddy, Advocate IOPUC 5 One CC to Sri M Damodar Reddy, Advocate [OPUC] 6. Two CD Copies ,L, N VBl(; I{ HIGH COURT DATED:2810812025 II' ., tti trilr ,c 17 JAN l[26 * oEs Fr\:' : 2\ t) * i ORDER CRLP.No.46 of 2025 DISMISSING THE CRIMINAL PETITION -lPti I I -,1 ..'t -' .1 \1t'