Dr.Vankayalapati Venkateshwar Prasad, S/o v. Krishnaiah Naidu, Age

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to declare the inclusion of this new Section 12(1 Xb) of the lndia Passport Act as dishonest, illegal, unlawful and not warranted either in law or on fact and as colourable exercise of power, and quash the same along with Sections 467, 468 and 471 IPC in Crime No. 17 of 2024 of Raidurgam Police Station, Cyberabad Police Co m m iss io ne rate. Counsel for the Petitioners: SRI PATTABHI VEMULAPATI (SC) REPRESENTING SRI L PRASADA RAO Counsel forthe Respondent No 1 To 3: SRI G ANIKETH REDDYAGP FOR HOME Counsel for the Respondent No 4: SRI IMMINENI RAMA RAO The Court made the following: ORDER HON'BLE SRIJUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN WRIT PETITION No.2747 OF 2025 ORDER: Heard Sri Pattabhi Vemulapati, leamed Senior Counsel, representing Sri. L. Prasad Rao leamed counsel for the Petitioners, Sri G. Aniketh Reddy, leamed Assistant Government Pleader fof Home, and Sri. Immineni Rama Rao leamed Counsel for 4th Respondent.

2. This writ petition is filed to declare the action of 3'd respondent in adding Sections 467, 468 and 471 of IPC in Crime No. 17 of 2024 of Raidurgam Police Station against the petitioners/A.l to A.3 as illegal and to quash the proceedings with regard to the additional sections in the aforesaid crime. .

3. This is third round of litigation. As per the report dated

08.01.2024 submitted by 4'h respondent, 3"r respondent has registered a case in Cr.No. 17 of 2024 against the petitioners initially for the offences punishable under Sections 417, 420 and 506 read with 34 of IPC.

4. The petitioners filed a petition vide Crl.P.No.6l6 of 2024 under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. to quash the proceedings in Cr.No.l7 of 2024 pending on the file of3'd respondent Police Station. \ 1 2 \

5. 4'h respondent had frled a writ petition vide W.P.No.l875 of 2024 to declare the action of 3'd respondent in not conducting investigation in effective and fair manner in the said Cr.No. l7 of 2024 as illegal. She also sought a direction to police to provide protection to her and her minor daughter and also constitute a Special Investigation Team (SIT) or entrust the case to the CB-CID etc.

6. Vide common order dated 24.06.2024, this Court dismissed the said Crl.P.No.616 of 2024 and disposed of W.P.No. 18 75 of 2024 directing the Investigating Officer in the subject crime to conduct investigation in a fair and transparent manner and to consider certain factual aspects while conducting investigation.

7. On the request made by 4th respondent,2nd respondent - The Commissioner of Police, transferred the investigation of the said crime to the Station House Ofhcer, Central Crime Station, Detective Department, Hyderabad, from respondent No.3 Police Station i.e. Police Station, Raidurg, Cyberabad Commissionerate.

8. The petitioners filed a writ petition vide W.P.No.27505 of 2024 challenging the said transfer of investigation of the subject crime from 5'h respondent therein/the Station House Oftcer, Raidurgam Police Station, Hyderabad to 4th respondent therein/the Station House Officer, Central Crime Station, Hyderabad.

9. Vide order dated 23.12.2024, this Court disposed of W.P.No.27505 of 2024 setting aside the proceeding dated 29.08.2024 of 5th respondent therein - the SHO, Raidurgam Police Station, proceeding dated 10.09.2024 of 2"d respondent - the Commissioner of Police, Cyberabad therein and proceedings dated 13.09.2024 of 3'd respondent therein - the Commissioner of Police, Hyderabad. This Court directed respondent Nos.3 and 4 therein to transfer the file in Cr.No.l7 of 2024 (new Cr.No.208 of 2024) to Respondent No.5 for further investigation. l'his Court also granted liberty to respondent No.5 therein to change the Investigating Officer in the subject crime and directed the Investigating Officer to conduct investigation strictly in accordance with law. This Court further directed 2nd respondent to supervise the investigation in the said crime. Both the Petitioners and Respondent' No.4 herein were directed to cooperate with the lnvestigating Officer by fumishing information and documents as sought by him in concluding the investigation as expeditiously as possible. 4 n

10. The Investigating Officer in the subject crime pending on the file of 3'd respondent herein i.e. SHO of Raidurg Police Station fited a rnemo dated 29.08.2024 before the leamed jurisdictional Magistrate adding sections of law i.e. 467,468 and 471 of IPC to the existing Sections i.e. 417,420 and 506 of IPC in the said crime. 1 l. Challenging the said action of tnvestigating Officer in adding the aforesaid sections in Cr.No.l7 of 2024, the petitioners filed the present writ petition contending as follows:- The Investigating Officer filed the said memo without application of mind. II r FIe has filed the said memo at the instance of 4ft respondent. The contents of the said memo lacks the ingredients of Sections 467, 468 and 471 of IPC. l\'. There is delay in lodging the complaint and also filing the said v. l'he said memo is contrary to the common order dated

24.06.2024 in Crl.P.No.61 6 of 2024 and W.P.No. 1875 of 2024. The purpose of insertion of the said Sections as additional I I - tr!!T ;tr!!!!!!l!!t'r rl -i Sections is not based on investigation nor it is based on any material on record. After adding the aforesaid Sections under the guise of investigation, the Investigating Ofhcer tried to apprehend the petitioners herein.

12. Respondents opposed this petition conrending as follows:- l. The Investigating Officer conducted investigation in terms of common order dated 24-06.2024 in Crt.P.No.6l6 of 2024 and W.P.No.l875 of 2024, more particularly, the aspects mentioned by this Court in paragraph No. I 3 of the order. It. During the course of investigation, the Investigating Officer recorded the statement of L.W.l i.e. 4th respondent herein obtained certified copies of birth certificates of the children on

19.01.2024 from the Commissioner of Health and Sanitation, GHMC lower Tank Bund, verified the same. He has also obtained bona fide certificates of the children from Oakridge Intemational School, Nanakramguda. On consideration of the same, the lnvestigating Off-rcer added the aforesaid Sections. Therefore, thdre is no irregularity in the same. I \\// 6 \ The contentions raised by the petitioners herein to declare the 1 inclusion of the albresaid Sections in the subject crime are triable aspects and the petitioners have to face trial and prove their innocence. I 3. With the said submissions, both the leamed Asst. Govt. Pleacler fbr Home and leamed counsel appearing for 4th respondent sought to dismiss the present writ petition.

1.1. It is apt to note that the petitioners herein have filed I.A.No.2 of 2025 to declare the inclusion of new Section i.e. Section l2 ( I Xb) ol'the Passport Act, 1967, as illegal.

15. Perusal of thc record, more particularly, the said application u,ould reveal that the Investigating Officer i.e. Detective Inspector of Police, Raidurgam Police Station, Cyberabad, has issued notice dated

19.08.1015 to the petitioner Nos.l and 3 herein/A. I and A.l directing thenl to appear before l'rim for the purpose of investigation with regard to three aspects rnentioned therein i.e. 1) Whether the defacto- complainant and Accused No.1 got married at Goapalpatnam, Y izag, 2 ) Strained relationship with Accused No. I and his first wife as contended by him and 3) Whether Accused No. I is having any children with his first wife. It was only a notice. The tnvestigating 1 Officer has not added the aforesaid offence under Section l2(l)(b) of the Passport Act. The petitioners failed to produce any document to show that the Investigating Officer has added the said offence in the subject crime. Therefore, they cannot seek to declare inclusion of the said offences in COR No.l7 of 2025, as illegal. Thus, it is for the Investigating Officer to conduct investigation on the said aspect and file charge sheet against the petitioners herein. I 6. Sri Pattabhi Vemulapati, leamed Senior Counsel representing Sri L. Prasad Rao, leamed counsel for the petitioners made his submissions extensively and placed reliance on the principle laid down by the Apex Court in Siddharth vs. Statg of Uttar Pradeshr.

17. Sri G.Aniketh Reddy, learned Assistant Govemment Pleader for Home appearing for State and Sri lmmineni Rama Rao, leamed counsel for 4tn respondent, made their submissions extensively and placed reliance on the principle laid down by the High Court of Madras in Daniel Hailey Walcott vs. State2.

18. In the light of the said submissions, it is relevant to note that vide the aforesaid memo dated 29.08.2024, the Investigating Officer ' (2022) I scc 676 '?(1967) Law Suit (Mad) 137 8 \ added Section s 467 , 468 and 471 of IPC to the existing Sections' The said sections included are extracted below:- Scction J63 of IP(': Forgery:-Whoever makes any false documents or pafi of a document with intent to cause damage or injury. to the public or to any person, or to support any claim or titlc. or to cause an) person to part with property, or to enter into any express or implied contract, or with intent to commit fraud or that fraud may be committed, commits forgery. Section 467 of IPC: Forgery of valuable security, will, etc. Whocver lbrges a document which purports to be a valuablc securitr or a ivill. or an authority to adopt a son, or which purports to givc authorit) to an) person to make or transfer any valuablc securitr'- or to recei!'e the principal, interesl or dividends thereon. or to receive or deliver any money. movable property. or valuable security. or any docunrent purporting to be an acquaintance or receipt acknowledging the payment of money, or an acquaintance or reccipt firr the delivery of any movable property or valuable securitv. shall be punished u,ith I52 [inrprisonment for life]. or rvith inrprisonrrent of either description for a term which may extend to ten ycars. and shall also be liable to fine.

19. To attract Section 467 of IPC the following ingredients are required:- l. There should be forgery of a document, which purports to be a valuable security,

2. Authority to adopt a son.

20. Section 41 5 of IPC deals with cheating and the same is extracted belon,:- Scction 415 of IPC: Cheating-Whoever, by deceiving any person, fraudulently or dishonestly induces the person so deceived to detiver anv property to any person, or to consent that any person shall retain an) propcrty, or intentionally induces the person so deceilcd to do or omit to do anything which he would not do or .1 - 9 'flf i*!il*'$H:#ffiIFlxTi:..#..:r.;H::

21. Secrion 46g of Ip( ing and rhe sarne ,, ***,:.::;:. rorgerv ror purpose or fi".fr+frry;ili*+*qt$H:nft ,Tjr:' To attract the said offenc document forged shall o.'t' 22. Toaftracr cher tntt should be forgery intending that the d forthepulposeofcheating. inducement which is u, t"'*' there shourd be fraudulent dishonest essential ingredient to artrao the offence under Section 420 oflpC,there should be delivery ofproperry or any person, making, alter or destroy the valuable security or anything signed or sealed and capable ofbeing converted into valuable securitv. l'he said Section is extracted below:-

420. Cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of propcrry:- Whoever cheats and thereby dishonestly induces th" p".ron deceived to deliver any propeny to any person, or to make. alter or destroy the whole or any part of a valuable security, or anything which is signed or sealed, and which is capable ofbeing converted into a valuable security,

23. Section 471 of IPC deals with using as genuine a forged document or electronic record. To attract the said offence, there t\ l0 ITI' should be fraudulent usage of the said document as genuine knowing that it is a forged document or electronic record' The said section is extracted belorv:-

471. tJsing as genuinc a forged document - Whoever fraudulently or dishoncstly' u"' u' g"nuin" any document which he knows or t"ti"u* io"u" l'io'gta ao"unrtnt' shalt be punished in has reason t ii; ;. manner as if he had forged such document' 24. In the tight of the same, this Court has to look into the ' investigation conducted by the Investigating Officer and basis on which, the atbresaid Sections were added.

25. In the menro dated 29.08.2024, the Investigating Officer categorically stated that during the course of investigation, he has examined and recorded the detailed statement of 4th respondent (L. W. I ) at Police Station IIc has served a notice under Section 9l of Cr.P.C. dated 11.01.2024 on rhe Commissioner of Health and Sanitation, GIJMC, l_ower Tank Bund, Hyderabad for collection of cenified copies of birth cenificates of three children i.e. I ) Bollineni Arjun, 2) Bollineni Krishna Vaishnavi and 3) Bollineni Srinika Chowdary. On 19.0r.2024, he has received certified copies of the birth certificates of the aforesaid three children from GFMC, Circle- 17. H,e has verified the sarne. r 2024' fie tas served nod'e Secrion et or Cr.p.Co:2:0.1 rrnder ro Oakridge Intemailonal Schoo,l, I I I Nanakramguda, for fumishing bona fide certificates of l) Bollineni Arjun and Srinika Chowdary. He has received bona fide certihcates from the Oakridge Intemational School of Arj un Choudary and Srinika Chowdary and on verifuing their bona fide certificates, their father's name is found as Bollineni Krishnaiah and mother's name Bollineni Sujatha.

26. It is further stated that during the course of investigation, the Investigating Officer served a notice under Section al-A (l) of Cr.P.C. on the petitioners herein and served another notice dated 01 .07.2024 under Section 911160 Cr.P.C. on the 4ft respondent with a request to provide other witnesses and details pertains to the present CASC.

27. On 02.07.2024, he has served notice under Section 9l of Cr.P.C. on Chirec International School, Kondapur for furnishing bona .fide cerlificale of Venkayalapati Vyshnavi. On the same day, he has received bona fide certificate. On verihcation of the same, the lnvestigating Officer noticed that mother's name of I ) Arjun Chowdary Bollineni is changed on bona fide certificate of Oakridge lnternational School, and the name of Bollineni Krishna Vaishnavi is changed as Venkalapati Vaishnavi, her father's name is changed as I t2 Vankayalapati Sri Venkateshwara Prasad, changed on bona fide ceftificate ol Chirec Intemational School and their passports. Thus, the petitioners obtained the certificates of the children i.e. bona fide ceflificates and passports, by submitting forged documents.

28. On consideration of the said aspects, the Investigating Otficer flled the aforesaid memo dated 29.08.2024 adding Sections 461,468 and 471ollPC to the existing Sections in the subject crime.

29. Prima focie, there are specific allegations of forgery of the documents and valuable security, and using the said forged documents as genuine. Whether the said act olthe petitioners is for the purpose of cheating or nol is a matter of trial. This Court cannot decide the said aspect in a w,rit petition llled under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It is lbr the trial Court to consider the said aspect.

30. ln the light of the said discussion, the contention of Sri Pattabhi Vemulapati. leamed Senior Counsel that the said memo is without an5, basis, the ingredients of the aforesaid offences are lacking etc., carmol be considered in a writ petition filed under Articte 226 of Constitution ol India.

31. As discussed supra, vide common order dated 24.06.2024, this Coun dismissed the said Crl.P.No.6l6 of 2024 and disposed of IJ W.P.No. 1875 of 2024 directing the Investigating Officer in the subject crime to consider certain factual aspects white conducting investigation, in paragraph No.13. The said aspects including delay in lodging a complaint and relation between petitioner No.l and respondent No.4 etc. Thus, they are triable issues. This Court cannot consider the said aspects in the present writ petition.

32. In this connection, it is apt to note that in Somjeet Mallick v. State of Jharkhand3, the Apex Court held as follows:-

15. Befofe we proceed to test the corlcct4gss of the imnusned order. we must bear in mind that at the stace of deciding nhether a criminal Droceeding or FIR, as the casc mav bc, is to be quashed at the threshold or not. the allesations in the tr'I R 0r the oolicc renort or the comolaint. includins the materials collected durins investigation or inquin, as the case mav be. are to be taken al thcir face valuc so as to detcrmine whether a prima facie case for inrest tion or nroceedins asainst thc accused. as thc case may be. is made out. The correctness ol the allegations is not to-be tested at this stage. . The said aspects were also considered by this Court in Kalvakuntla Taraka Rama Rao vs. State ACB, CIU, Hyderabada.

33. In the light of the said principle, coming to the present case, as discussed supra, prima facie, there are serious allegations against '(2024) lo scc 527 1 2025 SCC Online TS I t4 \ the petitioners of forging birth certificates, passports, bona fide certificates of children by mentioning wrong names of the mother in the aforesaid schools. GHMC and passport applications etc. Whether the said acts of the petitioners are for the purpose ofcheating or not, is the matter to be considered by the trial Court but not by this Court in a writ petition filed under Article226 of the Constitution of India.

34. It is also apt to note that challenging the order dated

23.12.2024 in W.P.No.27505 of 2024, 4'h respondent filed Special Leave to Appeal (Crl) Nos.798l-7982 of 2025 before the Apex Court. Vide order dated 22.07.2025, the Apex Court, referred the matter to the Mediation Centre directing the parties to appear before the Mediator. The same is unsuccessful. The said SLP is pending.

35. During the course of hearing, Sri G.Aniketh Reddy, leamed Asst. Gort. Pleader fbr Home, brought to the notice of this Court that the Investigating Ofticer has completed investigation and charge sheet is ready. Due to the pendency of the present writ petition, the Investigating Officer has not filed charge sheet and he is waiting for outcome of the present writ petition.

36. As discussed supra, in paragraph No.l3 of the aforesaid common order dated 24.06.2024 in Crl.P.No.616 of 2024 and W.P.No.l875 of 2O24, this Court directed the Investigating OfEcer to consider 12 factual aspects in conducting investigation including the contention of I't petitioner therein that 4th respondent is not his legally wedded wife, they are in live-in-relationship etc. This Court also directed the Investigating Officer to conduct investigation with regard to delay in lodging complaint by 4th respondent. However, l$ petitioner is not disputing that he is father of the children. According to him, he has not married 4th respondent and they are in live-in- relationship. According to 4'h respondent, she is legally wedded wife of l" petitioner. However, it is for the Investigating Officer in the subject crime to conduct investigation on the said aspect and it is for I the trial Court to consider said aspects.

37. Perusal of the judgment relied on by the leamed counsel for the petitioners in Siddharth (supra), the facts therein are different to the facts of the case on hand.

38. l't petitioner is 80 years old. Petitioner Nos.2 and 3 are Doctors by profession. Admittedly, there is delay on the part of respondent No.4 in todging the cornplaint. Therefore, this Court is of the vierv that there is no need 10 arrest the petitioners pursuant to (_-^. l6 \ alteration memo dated 29.08.2024. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to declare rhe action of Investigating Officer in adding Sections 467,468 and 4Tr ofIpc in addition to rhe existing Sections in Cr.No. l7 of 2024 pending on the file 3.d respondent, as illegal.

39. In the light of the aforesaid discussion and in view of the principle laid down by the Apex Court, this writ petition is disposed of directing the Investigating C)fficer in Cr.No. I 7 of 2024/3,d respondent, to file charge sheet without arresting the petitioners hereitr_ Consequently, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this writ petition, shalI stand closed. ,TRUE COPY// S .K.BHAVANI SWAMY ISTANT REGISTRAR \ SECTION OFFICER I To, '1 . The Principal Secretary, Department of Home Secretariat, State of Telangana, Hyderabad.

2. The Commissioner of Police, Cyberabad. 3. The Station House Officer, Raidurgam Police Station, Cyberabad 4. Mrs. Bollineni Krishnaveni, Wo. Not Known, Age 40 years,Occ. Housewife,, R/o. Villa No.3SA,Lalitha Bloom Field, Khajaguda, Hyderabad

5. One CC to SRI L PRASADA RAO Advocate [OPUC] 6. Two CCs to GP FOR HOME ,High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderbad. [OUT]

7. One CC to SRI IMMINENI RAMA RAO Advocate [OPUC] 8. Two CD Copies D.N BS (ev HIGH COURT DATED:2410912025 ORDER nt S,tA 1 I t.:. \ (., ? { JAN 2t2[ WP.No.2747 of 2025 t ^. * I DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS q( /; \tL' g lV