The High Court · 2025

W{o,.Vrjay Kumar, Aged about 58 years, R/o. Ftat No. 504, 8-3_ 9. ^V.a?gja. 168/E/50-51 , Sri Venkateshwara Residency, Rajiv Nagar, Hyderabad-SOOO45 L 9qty, !gn1 D/q T Keshav Rao, Aged about 19 years, Occ Student, R/o. ?io_t_ tlS 57, FIat No. 501, Tarangaralu Towers, Rajeev Nagar, Hyderibad- 500045. ]_ Sq1ary, D/o. T. Keshav Rao Aged about 21 years, Occ Student, R/o. ptot N-o:-57, Flat No. 501, Tarangar-ju Towers, Rajeev Nagar, Hyderabad - 500045. AND 1 ) ...PetitionerS/Accused No.1 to 4, and in others stated names. The State of Telangana, Rep by Public Prosecutor, High Court of Hyderabad. Mr. Vakiti Sudhakar, S/o. Chinna Sukanna, Aqe 53 vrs.Occ. oovt office non-gazetted, R/o. H.NO. 14-2. Raitway quartels, Kuinool towi ,Kurnool District, AP. Petition under Section 173 and 176 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal petition, the High Court may be pleased to call for the records pertain to the FIR NO.20 of 2025 on the file of CCS PS vide INSP ADMIN (DD) dated. 1B-2-2O25 quash the same as abuse of process of law. ...Respondents l.A. NO: 2 OF 2025 Petition under Section 528 of BNSS praying that rn ie circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal petition, tf I High Court may be pleased to stay in all further investigation in FIR NO.20 oi :025 on the file of CCS PS vide INSP ADMIN (DD) dated. 18-2-2025 inctuc ng arrest of the petitioners. l.A. NO: 3 OF 2025 Petition under Section 528 of BNSS praying that in 1e circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal petition, tl- r High Court may be pleased to suspend the notice Dated. 3$-3-2025 vide tJ Io. 2Oleow/Team V/CCS/HYD/2025 given by the police in connection with FR lO.20 of 2O2S on the file of CCS PS vide INSP ADMTN (DD) dated. 18-2-2025 l.A. NO: 4OF 2025 Petition under Section 528 of BNSS praying that rn lle crrcumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal petition, tr: High Court may be pleased to vacate the orders dated 20.03.2025 passed by tr s Hon'ble court in ia.no.2 of 2025 in crl.p 3906 of 2025. This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing -e Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the argument:; tf Sri Gundlapalli V S S S Sruthi, Advocate for the Petitioner and the public pror;, cutor (TG/Ap) on behalf of the Respondent No. The Court made the following: ORDER THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVIEADA CRIMINA L PETITIO N No.39 06 oF 2025 I I ORDER: ThisCriminalPetitionisfiledbythepetitionersSeekingto quash the proceedings against them in Crime No 20 of 2025 of INSP Admin (DD) Police Station' Hyderabad' registered for the offences under Sections 467, 468 and 471read with 34 of l P'C'

2. Heard Sri G.L. Narasimha Rao' learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri Jithender Rao Veeramalla' learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent No 1-State and Sri Katika Ravinder Reddy, learned counsel for respondent No 2'

3. Learned counsel for the petitroners submitted that respondent No.2-de facto complainant himself is a fraudster; that he himself has created one Aadhar Card portraying himself as Vakiti Sudhakar, though his name is Dasari Sudhakar; that he claimed succession over the properties of V Sudhakar Rao and got mutated the properties in his name' and that he has also effected sales of the properties and received crores of Rupees' He further submitted that respondent No 2 himself has created the litigation and has got foisted a false case against the petitioners herein. He further submitted that' in fact' the , --\ **t1 2 I] TD-J (lrl p.No.l906 of202i deceased V. Sudhakar Rao has executed a Will t eed durrng his Iife time by virtue of which the petitioners have srr :ceeded to his properties' but it is alleged by the de facfo comprr inant that the Will Deed is fake, based on the Truth Labs Rep,> t. He further submitted that neither lhe de facto complainant nor he police can conclude the said document to be a fake one ! rsing on the photocopy of the document that is sent to the Tr'l h Labs. He further submitted that the petitioners have lodgerl a complaint earlier and as a counter blast, the present case f i s been filed against the petitioners herein. He further submitted t rat since the matter is of civil in nature as to the succession of ilrr , properties, initiation of criminal proceedings is not just and r .oper. therefore, prayed to quash the proceedings in the pr )sent crime against the petitioners herein. He,

4. Learned Additional public prosecutor submifl€ J that the said V. Sudhakar Rao died issueless and th€ de facto complainant herein is the son of the brother of thrr deceased V. Sudhakar Rao, while the petitioners are the sisters , ,f the wife of the deceased and their children. Thus, there ar( property disputes between the parties. He further submitte i that the prosecution could make out during the course of investil ltion that rcg, J ETD.J Crl P.No.3906 0f2025 the petitioners herein have created a fake Will Deed. Forging a document attracts criminality and when once there is criminality in acase,initiationofcriminalproceedingsisverymuchjustand proper as per the law laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court in Kathyayini v. Sidharth P'S' Reddyl' He therefore prayed to dismiss the Criminal Petition'

5. Learned counsel for respondent No 2 submitted that a civil suit is filed by the daughter of petitioner No 2 i'e'' Barla Shalini' ln the said suit, it is stated that she is the adopted daughter of Sri V. Sudhakar Rao and that the said V Sudhakar Rao died intestate leaving the plaintiff as Class-lv legal heir' Now' in this case, the petitioners claim that they have Will Deed in their favour and that the properties belong to them Thus' they contradict their own submissions. When the said V' Sudhakar Rao has died intestate,thatitselfwouldindicatethattheallegedWillDeedisa forged one. Hence, there is no truth in the submissions of the petitioners and that lhe de facto complainant is the successor of the deceased V Sudhakar Rao He further submitted that the said B. Shalini filed W.P'No'17168 of 2022 before this Court seeking not to mutate the names of respondent Nos T to 1 3 I 2025 Livclaw (sC) 172 t- \**1 I ..1 \ 4 EI'D.J Crl P.No.3906 of202i therein in the place of late V. Sudhakar in the evenue records including issuance of pattadar passbook and ti .r l deeds in their favour and this Court yrde interim order, drrl )d 06.04.2022, granted status quo. Subsequenfly, during pt nclency of the proceedings, the official respondents in the Writ )etition granted succession in favour of respondent No.S therein who is the de facto complainant herein, in respect of the subjerl properties and consequenfly, entertained the sale deeds in r: vour of some persons. Thus, aileging that there is wirfur disot -.dience of the interim orders of this Court, the said B. Shalini fil: I C.C.No.1153 of 2024 and on thorough examination of the male .iar on record, the said Contempt Case was closed by this Cct rt. Thus. the petitioners have no case at all that they th: nselves have contradicted their own submissions before the r rthorities and hence, prayed to dismiss the Criminal petition

6. Perused the record

7. The allegations prima facle point out that th: Will Deed is forged by the petitioners. A comprehensive perusil of the plaint in the civil suit filed by B. Shalini, who is ailege c to be the adoptive daughter of deceased V. Sudhakar Rao, il s contended 7t I i l ) ETI)-J Crl.l' No.1906 o1 2025 that V. Sudhakar Rao died intestate The contention of the petitioners in this case is that the deceased V. Sudhakar Rao has executed a Will Deed. lt is to be noted that one of the petitioners herein is none other than the mother of B. Shalini Thus, there are property disputes between the parties and the allegations prima facie point out the offence of forgery. B. The petitioners' counsel contention that initiation of criminal proceedings during the subsistence of civil proceedings is bad in the eye of law, cannot be sustained' in view of the law laid down by the Honourable Apex Court in Kathyayini's case (supra), wherein it was held that pendency of civil proceedings on the same subject matter involving the same parties is no justification to quash the criminal proceedings if a prima facle case exists against the accused persons- Therefore, this Court finds no merit in the Criminal Petition.

9. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is dismissed' Miscellaneous Petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. SD/- N.CHANDRA SEKHAR RAO DEPUTY REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, \ ,N/ 1 2 4 The Xll Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Nampally, Hyderaba The Station House Officer, Central Crime Station - DD, Hyderabad TwoCCstoPublicProsecutor,HighcourtfortheStateofTelangana, Hyderabad IOUT] Orie CC to SRl. Gundlapalli V S S S Sruthr Advocate [OPUC] One CC to SRl. Public Prosecutor Advocate [OPUC] d 6 Two CD CoDies. HIGH COURT DATED:1211112025 ORDER CRLP.No.3906 of 2025 ,\ J. : ':' 0 i:L 70fr ti.' \, :/' I THE CRIMINAL PETITION IS DISMISSED. [/