High Court · 2025

2. Sri.Muthyam Reddy' S/o'-NotIlgryI to the petitioner' Age'Malor' Occ RDO' ' 6);. Rii6' Siddipel, Siddipet District' "'RespondenUDe facto Complainant petition under section 482 0f cr.p.c playlns that in the circumstances stated in the Memorand'#"rt?*ot oi Cti'inlr Fetition' the High Court may be oleased to oUASHthe ;o#';nj; in C c 1o 681 ol2021 on the file of the tudicial First class nr,gittl;lt"D-'tu'x (*ni"n,'rises out of Cr'No 11-ot 2017 "sl"*-*Ji:' siddipet District) asalnst the on the file of the o"'iJ", t i"titi"i"rin""used No'5 in the interest of justice l.A. NO: 10F 2022 Petition under Section 482 of Cr'P 'C prayinrq that in the circumstances stated in the Memorand'#"tb"ro*Ot of Cri;inal Petition' the High Court may lf all th^e proceedings including be pleased to grant aooearance of the petition!')'n"""Lo-rtr" s in c c No' 6Bi of 2021 on the file of the Judicial First Class rtrrgi.itr" ,t ououut (which arises out of Cr'No 11 of 2017 onthe fite of ,n" oo"l!,'i."a"rlfgrir, SiA'dipet District) pending disposal of the above criminal Petition '*"*1i'v ^further "r This petition comin Grounds cr-r"r?";;,':^": t:' hearing' upon perusing the Memorandum of Reddy, Aovoc;; il ;: ?ffi:"::?:"3;, Ii,,lig,,""o or Sri s a,,;;;", Prosecutor (TG) on beharf of the Respondent *".., The Court made the following: ORDER the Assistant pubric "lXT"'' THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE JUWADISRIDEVI cRlMIN AL PETI Tro NN o.13 38 oF2 022 OR D ER 5 This Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioner-accused No' seeking to quash the proceedings against her in C C No'681 of 2021 on the file of learned Judicial First Class tr/lagistrat at Dubbak, registered for the offences under Sections 419' 420' 468,471, 12O-B of the lndian Penal Code (for short 'lPC')' 02. Heard Sri S Surender Reddy' learned counsel for the petitioner-accused No 5 and Smt S Madhavi' learned Assistant PublicProsecutorfortheState-respondentNos.land2.Perused the record

03.lnbrief,theCaSeofthecomplainant/respondentNo.2is that, as the lands of Rampoor village of Thoguta lt/landal were being acquired for the lVlallanna Sagar Project and the Government was providing compensation to the land losers' accused Nos.1 and 2, in collusion with accused No 3, took advantage of the situation and issued duplicate D-form certificates in the names of some of the villagers to wrongfully gain money. lt is alleged that accused Nos.1 and 2 obtained \ \ 2 duplicate D_form certificates and made it appear as though they had been issued by accused No.3 during his tenure at the Thoguta Mandal Office between the years 20( '.-:-1""". 2003 and 2oos, bv couectins an amount *.;;;;, *t from each candidate- Further, ", ''oool- accused Nos.1 and , ,.f sued these duplicate D_form certificates to the villagers under the condition that they would receive half of the compensation amount obtained from the Government. On this basis, the villagers were induced to apply to the Tahsildar Office using these certificates. Thus, it is alleged that accused Nos.1 to 7, with a fraudulent intention to wrongfully gain money, created forged documents and cheated the Government and the public by usrng such documents as genuine

04. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner/Accused No.5 has no involvement whatsoever in the alleged offences. lt is contended that initially, the case was registered against Accused Nos..l to 4, but subsequenfly, based on the alleged confession of a co-accused, the petitioner was arrayed as Accused N0.5, despite having no connection with the a\\eged ottences' lt is further submitted that the petitioner's name nor appear *'].,:":r:::":::: I, """"""".=:" 3\\egeu'Y "' \mp\cated' \las\a\et \ ( 3 without any factual basis, which amounts to an abuse of the process of law. lt is also contended that following the registration ofthecrime,theDistrictCollector'siddipet,issuedArticlesof Charge against the petitioner' However' upon receiving and being satisfied with the petitioner's explanation' the District Collector dropped all the charges and regularized the suspension period' Therefore, it is argued that in light of the departmental proceedings having been dropped, Proceedings which were initiated based on the same complaint made by Respondent No.2, the continuation oi criminal proceedings against the petitioner would amount to nothing but an abuse of process of law. Hence, he prayed for the quashment of criminal proceedings against the petitioner-accused No 5

05. On the other hand, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for the State-respondent Nos'1 and 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. 4 rq\r\

06. A perusal of the record discloses that maior portion of the allegations are made against the accused Nos.1 to 3 and there are no direct allegations levelled against the petitioner_accused No.S. lt is further evident from the record that the petitioner_ accused No.5 was implicated basing on the confessional statements of the other accused. The charge sheet does not specifically refer to the role of the petitioner_accused No.5 in the alleged forgery, or cheating, or conspiracy. Collector and lhe petitioner_accused 07 . It is pertinent to note that the issue was before the District No.5 was issued with articles of charges vide proceedings dated 27.05.2017. After considering the relevant material including the explanation submitted by the petitioner-accused No.5, the District Collector vide proceedings dated 30.08.201g has dropped all the charges and regularized her suspension period. 0B lt is to be noted here that mere implication of the petitioner- accused No.5 basing on the confession of the other accused, without there being any incriminating material, is not permissible under law. To connect the petitioner_accused No.5 to the alleged offences, there shall be substantive evidence with regard to the alleged conspiracy between the accused persons. Except the 5 statements of the complainants' panch witnesses of confessional statements and five investigating officers, there is no independent witness or expert witness to prove the alleged forgery or conspiracy committed by the petitioner-accused No'S There is no effort made by the Police to record the statement of the accused under Section '164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure' 09 ln State of Haryana and others v' Ch'Bhaian Lal and othersl the Hon'ble Supreme Court of lndia held that: 'ln the exercise of lhe extra-ordinary power ,,ri", oio" 226 or the inherent powers under i""rri, 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure' ti" fonto*ng categories of cases are given by '*.y o,f inuri rn wherein such power could be exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of any Couri or otherwise to secure 'the ends of iustice, though it may not be possrb/e to iay down any precise ' clearly defined and sufficiently channelised and inflexible guide myriad kinds of cases wherein such Power should be exercised: (!) where the altegations made in the First lnformation Repoft or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused; ' '1992 scc (suPP) I 335 6 F+. 9 where the alle< tnrormation R;;,1:,r7"_'::'" in the First n au, accompanyins nu r t3'huJ^'j!7ria|s cosnizabti .;.;;; ',r"i * not disctose a an investigation by potice ";;;;,;2,,;::t!:!, wooe except under an :::'::.tsi.(1) of the within the n,,^,,)..-..' :: :'ot'of a Magislrate - t'ut vtt'vv or section 155(2) ot the code. (!) where the uncontt made in tn"_ rii"ii,*verted ailesations and the ".i."i"o ii ,i"mot"int evidence or the same do not ,,.J;;;; :PPoft .", i' .-" r r" Jr r" :-": ::t' :; ;: r.;!. o_ff e n c e accused; *:.: the. ailegations in the FtR do not 9 constitute a cognizable offence O* u n?.n-lonnizable offence, no investigation "rrrr,rri" ,o!,! ts.permfited by a potice officer without an order of-a Magistrate as contemplated underSeclr,on 155(2) of the code; (2 *1".n the altegations made in the FtR or complaint are so absurd and innereniy rmprobable on the basis of which no prrAunt person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against lhe accused; (9) where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved parly; (7) where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the 7 ';,::;:';:,,J: [: f::;ll. in s,i,uted wi,h an ac.cused and win';;:;'n vengeance on the spite him due to private ana pe,s'on; ;:;:;

10. ln the present case from the material on regarding any specific petitioner_accused No.5 allegations pertain solely element of cheating or petitioner_accused as discussed hereinabove, it is evident record that the charge sheet is silent role, overt act, or involvement of the in the alleged offences. The principal to the accused Nos. 1 to 3. There is no fraudulent intention attributable to the Even if the allegations in the charge ce value and accepted in their entirety, sclose the commission of any offence No.5 Therefore, the present case falls within the parameters of point No.3 of Ch.Bhajanlal,s case No.5. sheet are taken at their: fa they do not prima facie di against the petitioner_accused { cited supra

11. ln view of the aforementioned facts and circumstances and having regard to the well_setfled principle of law formulated by the Honourable Supreme Court in the decision referred supra, this Court is of the considered view that the essential ingredients necessary to constitute the offences under Section s 41g, 420, 468,471,120-8 of lpC are not made out against the petitioner_ 8 \ accused No 5 Hence' the continuation of the criminal proceedings against the petitioner-accused No 5 amounts to abuse of process of law and the same are liable to be quashed 12. Accordingly, this Criminal Petition is allowed and the criminal Proceedings against C.C.No.681 ot 2021 on the file of learned Judicial First Class Magistrat at Dubbak, are hereby quashed' the Petitioner-accused No 5 tn sequel, pending miscellaneous applications' if any' Asa shall stand closed n Sd,. A. JAYASREE ts ANT REGISTRAR OT //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFIC ER .) To,

1. The Judicial First Class lrilaqistrate at Dubbak . i. +h; 6i;i;; nouse oticeillr'iig'iu Police station' siddipet Dist' A o;;a*c i; dil-s-su'enoe, Redd'v, Advocate toP.gcl 4. Two CCs to the puoric piosei"J;;,'i]gh C"ria"f Teiangana at Hyderabad , l?lto 5 S tr/l/kam ""r,", $ HIGH COURT DATED: 2510712025 ORDER CRLP.No.1338 of 2022 ...- ,/'-.i. '' ',/ i rc'\. u, \ , .-) l, -, 2t. 12 IIJB 20[ 4- l'ASs ('\a ALLOWING THE CRIMINAL PETITION tB CilC* W