The High Court · 2025

1. The State of Telangana, Rep. by the Public Prosecutor, High Court of Telangana, Hyderabad.

2. Sri. Girkati Niranjan Goud, S/o. Girkati Sathaiah, aged about 49 years, Occ- Business, Caste- Goud, Rl/o. H. No. 2-1 '18, Malkapuram Village, Choutuppal Mandal, Yadadri - Bhongir District ...RESPONDENT 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 quash the proceedings in C.C. No. 1645 of 2021 on the file of the Honorable Junior Civil Judge-cum-Judicial First Class Magistrate at Choutuppal which is registered for the offences U/s. 419, 42O, 468, 471 IPC as against this petitioner A-7. l.A. NO: 2OF 2025 Pelition 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 C.C. No. 1645 of 2021 on the file of the Junior Civil Judge-cum-Judicial First Class Magistrate at Choutuppal including arrest of the petitioner pending disposal of the present criminal petition This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Smt. K Pallavi, Advocate for the Petitioner and Sri. Jithender Rao Veeramalla, Additional Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No. 1. and none appeared for the Respondent No.2 The Court made the following: ORDER THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA CR IMINAL PETITION No.4312 OF 2025 ORDER: This Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioner-ar;r used No.7 seeking to quash the proceedings against him in C.C. Jo.1645 of 2021 on the file of learned Junior Civil Judge-r;r m-Judicial tvlagistrate of First Class, Choutuppal, registered for ti a offences under Sections 419,420,468 and 471 of l.P.C.

2. Heard Smt. K. Pallavi, learned counsel for tl-t petitioner and Sri Jithender Rao Veeramalla, learned Additic nal Public Prosecutor for respondent No.1 -State

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitte,t that the petitioner is no way concerned with the alleged offent;' rs and that he is only a document writer. The petitioner is simpll' arrayed as accused No.7 wrthout any overt acts attributed again'; him She further submitted that even the statements of thr: witnesses examined by the prosecution do not disclose anything lgainst the petitioner herein and that none of the offences allege< would get attracted against the petitioner herein. She further sut mitted that the prosecution could not collect any material a Sainst the {---'*r - 2 I:T D.,I Crl.P.No.,lJ I2 of 202,i petltioner herein. She, therefore, prayed to quash the proceedings in the present C.C. against the petitioner herein.

4. Learned Additional public prosecutor submitted that the complaint is with regard to forging a document. Accused No.3 is the own brother of accused No..l and accused No.4 is the own brother of accused No.2. lt is alleged that the petitioner_accused No.7 acted in collusion with other accused in bringing a forged document, which needs to be tested during the course of trial. He further submitted that the petitioner herein, being a document writer, has facilitated the preparation of fake documents. He, therefore, prayed to dismiss the Criminal petition.

5. Perused the record

6. It is alleged that the petitioner is a document writer and he has colluded with accused Nos.1 and 2 for execution of fraudulent documents at SRO Choutuppal in the names of accused Nos.3 and 4. It is alleged that as per their plan, accused Nos..l and 2 obtained certified copy of document No.2734 of .1996 in respect of plot Nos.59 and 123 in Survey No.100, which belongs to one Enaganti Venkateswar Rao, and have approached one Bairu Srinivasa Rao and another, discussed about their plan and - -) D]'D,J (r lNo,1ll2ol202-i created a fake document with fake l D' proofs with he help of accused No.5 and kept an unknown person photogral) ) instead of the photograph of the original owner and got regis ( red a Sale Deed in favour of Bairu Srinivas vide document No ' t79 oI 2014 at SRO Choutuppal. Subsequently, accused Nos' and 2 got registered GPA in the name of their own brothers i : , accused Nos.3 and 4 at SRO Choutuppal and both accused 'los 1 and 2 sold out the same plots to lhe defacto complaine r t herein on 04.09.2014. Thus, the allegations prima facie 1> rint out the involvement of petitioner-accused No.7 that he act€( in collusion with other accused and facilitated in creation of fake documents' Thecontentionofthepetitionelscounselisthattheitgredientsof the alleged offences do not attract against the petir oner herein But, prima facie case is made out from the allegatior s against the petitioner herein. The truth or otherwise in the alle < ations would be culled out during the course of trial.

7. The specific contention of the petitioner's r;r unsel is that there is nothing to prove the offence under Secli rn 468 I P C' against the petitioner herein Section 468 l'P O is extracted hereunder for the sake of reference: I t I 4 E-I'D,J Crl.P.No.{l l2 ofl0li "468. Forgery for purpose of cheating._ Whoever commits forgery, intending that the document or electronic record forged shall be used for the purpose of cheating, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine." rhe prima facre ailegations make out that the petitioner has involved in making fake documents. Therefore, it is not appropriate to quash the proceedings in the present crime against the petitioner herein. However, it is deemed appropriate to dispense with the attendance of the petitioner before the trial Court.

8. Accordingly, the Criminal petition is disposed of dispensing with the attendance of the petitioner before the trial Court provided he is represented by a counser before the triar court on every date of hearing and shall appear before the trial Court whenever his presence is required during the course of trial. Miscella neous Petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed //TRUE COPY// To, SD/- U. SUDHA ASSISTANT REGISTRAR G SECTION OFFICER

1. The Additional Judicial First Class at Ramannapet. 2. The Station House officer, choutuppal police Station, yadadri-Bhuvanagiri District. Hyderabad. (OUT)

3. Two CCs to Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana at 4. One CC to Smt. K Pallavi, Advocate tOpUCI 5. Two CD Copies. PM/Sa ,j HIGH COURT DATED:21 11112025 ORDER CRLP.No.4312 of 2025 I I K i__ r, . ii tr ult 4';'rt EFft.r !:' i' jj DISPOSING OF THE CRIMINAL PETITIC'I.I. @ Iilr4-