The High Court · 2025

This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri K JAYASREE, Advocate for the Petitioner and SRI E GANESH, the Assistant Public prosecutor for the Respondent No.1 and none appeared for the Respondent No.2. The Court made the following: ORDER THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE E.V. VENU CPAL ,. CRIMINAL PETI ON No.2355 OF 2( 25 ORDER: 1. This petition is filed under Section 528 of B.N.S S to call for the records relating to the FIR No.115 of 2025 of Ol outuppal Police Station, Rachakonda Commissionerate, R.R. District a td to quash the proceedings thereon.

2. Brief facts of the case are that on l3-2-202!i at 11:30 PM, a crime has been registered by the Assistant Commis;ioner of Police, Choutuppal basing on the complaint filed by the de r, 'cfo complainant i.e., V. Shekar Reddy, who is working as Revenue i ivisional Officer, Choutuppal Division since 12.02.2024. It is stated . r the complaint that on 28.01.2025, one Sri Topunuri Ravi Goud S/o. Borraiah lodged a petition stating that one Sri Surgi Anjaiah S/0. Swa ni got executed GPA document No.4555/2019 dated 25.03.2019 t:fore the Sub- Registrar, Choutuppal from Boram Bixapathi Reddy ar I Boram Venkat Ram Reddy and that the said Borram Bixampathi Re ldy and Borram Venkat Ram Reddy through their GPA holder Sur;i Anjaiah S/o. Swamy executed registered document Nos.6689/2Cl 4 & 669012024 dated 17.09.2024 in the form of plots to an extent of i 00 square yards and 300 square yards respectively by producing the 'abricated NALA conversion proceedings vide No. 8/95/2010 datecl 23.11.2019 in z respect of the lands in Sy.No.288/a3l2, 289lal/Z situated at Thangadpally Village of Choutuppal Mandal. Accordingly, the letter vide Lr.No.Clzgsl12024, dt.01.02.2025 was addressed to the Sub- Registrar Choutuppal to enquire into the matter and to furnish the details of the transactions took place using the copy No.B/95/2019 dated 23.11.2019 in the name of Sri Borem Biksham Reddy S/o Late Narsaiah through GPA holder Sri Survi Anjajah S/o.Swamy and also submit the certified copies of the Registration Documents bearing No.6689/2024 and 6690/2024 dated: 17.09.2024 along with the NALA conversion copy No.B/95 12019 in the name of Sri Borem Biksham Reddy S/o Late Narsaiah dated 23.11.2019. Fufther, the Sub- Registrar, Choutuppal vide Lr.No.3712025, datd 10.02.2025 has submitted the attested copies of the Registration Documents bearing Nol6689/202a and 669012021 dated L7.09.2024 executed by Boram Bixapathi Reddy & another and their GPA holder Sri SurgiAnjajah S/o Swamy. On perusal of the certified copies submitted by the Sub- Registrar, it is observed that Surgi Anjajah, who is the GPA holder submitted NALA conversion proceedings No. Bl95l20t9 dated Z3.lt.2OL9, issued by the-then Revenue Divisional Officer, Sri R. Mahender Reddy in favour of Borem Bikshama Reddy S/o Late Narsaiah in Sy.Nos.288la3l2, 289laU2 admeasuring Ac.5.14 gts situated at Thangedpally Village of Choutuppal mandal, while 3 executing register sale deeds bearing Nos.6689/202,t and 669e12024, datedi 17.09.2024. It is stated that Sri R. Mahen:rr Reddy, RDO, worked at Choutuppal during the period from 11.10.2016 to

18.72.2016, and on the said date Sri R.Mahendar Red ly, RDO was not working as the Revenue Divisional Officer of Choutult nl Division. On noticing that the proceedings No.8/95/2019, da:ed 23.LI.20t9 submitted to the Sub-Registrar, Choutuppal by Surg Anjaiah was a forged document, and it was not issued by th t-then Revenue Divisional Officer, Choutuppal, a complaint has bex n addressed to Assistant Commissioner of Police, and as per the in:; ructions, Lw-11, Inspector of Police of Choutuppal P.S, registered , case in Crime No.115i2025 for the offences under Sections 318. 336(2), 336(3), 337, 338, 339, 340,341(1), 34t(2), 111(2) (b) (:1 , BNS, and the mafter was entrusted to the Sub-Inspector of Police :'Choutuppal p.S (LW-12) for further investigation. Accordingly, LW-12 investigated the crime and based on the confession of accused A-1 :i trgi Anjaiah, the name of A2 was arrayed as accused. In the said ccr fession, accused A-1 Surgi Anjaiah confessed to LW-12 that he dlong ',1 ith the petitioner committed the offence.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits tha : the petitioner,s name was not arrayed as accused in the FIR initially, rnd based on the 4 confession of A1, petitioner's name was recorded as accused in the said crime. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that confession made to LW-12 is inadmissible as per Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act and therefore, only basing upon the confession of A1 arraying the petitioner as A2 without any material is not in accordance with law, and seeks to allow this petition.

4. Per contra, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor submits that based upon the confession of 41, petitioner has been arrayed as 42 in the said crime, and the said fact was revealed in the investigation. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor further submits that at no stretch of imagination it can be assumed that A1 alone has submitted said statement in the absence of assistance of A2 where stamps pertaining to Revenue Department stated to have been used and the rules of the matter have to be examined, hence at this stage interference of this Court ls not warranted. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor fudher submits that based on the stay granted by this Court on 07.07.2025 further investigation in the said crime has been stalled and seeks direction to respondent police to proceed with the investigation and fileappropriate repod before trial court.

5. Since serious allegations are made against the RDO, who was not functioning at the relevant polnt of time when document was 5 forged, thorough investigation is required to be condr :ted in the said crime by collecting necessary evidence.

6. Having heard the learned counsel for the petiti:1er and learned Additional Public Prosecutor, this Court deems it appr lpriate to direct the police to conduct investigation strictly in accoidar:e with law and file appropriate report as expeditiously as possible vvi .hin a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of tl-i; order, and the police shall not take any coercive steps including arrest of the petitioner. The petitioner shall cooperate for further investigation to arrive at a logical conclusion.

7. Accordingly, this Criminal Petition is disposed of .

8. Miscellaneous petitions if any pending in this :riminal petition shall also stand disposed of. Sd/ L. LAKSHMI BABU D :PUTY REGISTRAR ,1 /TTRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To,

1. The Judicial First Class Magistrate at Choutuppal' 2. The Station House Officer, Choutuppal Police Station : achakonda Commissionerate, R-R. District'

3. One CC to SRI K JAYASREE Advocate [OPUC] 4. Two CCs to PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, High court for tlr t state of Telangana' O at HYderabad [OUT]

5. Two CD Copies I I l i i i I I HIGH COURT DATED:0410812025 ORDER CRLP.No.2355 of 2025 aEH T4 1ic ( l' 2 JAN 2026 * DISPOSING OF THE CRIMINAL PETITI )N 0\