High Court · 2025

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 FIR No 52 of 2025 belore the Addl. Judicial First Class l\,4agrstrate at Suryapet filed against the Petitioner/A-1. l.A. NO:2OF 2025 Petitiorl under Section 528 of BNSS, praying that in the circumstances stated in the [Vlemorandum of Grounds of Crrminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to grant stay of all the further proceedings herein FIR no 52 of 2025 filed at before the Addl. Judicial Ftrst Class [/agistrate at Suryapet against the Petrtioner/A-1, pending disposal of this Criminal petition. f This Petiti,tn coming on for hearing, upon perusinr; tre IVlemorandum of Grounds of Crimin al Petition and upon hearing the argurre "ts of l\,4 r. RAMESH BABU VISHWANA-THULA, Advocate for the Petitioner and iV.. IU,VIVEKANANDA REDDY, Assistant Dublic Prosecutor (TG) on behalf of the - :spondent No.1 and None appeared for the Respondent No.2. The Court made the following: ORDER .aa,&r THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA CRIMINAL PETITION NO.447O OF 2(,25 ORDER: This criminal petition is fited under Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2O23 seeking to quash the proceedings against the petitioner-accr.rsed No. 1 in F.I.R.No.52 of 2025 of Mothey Police Station, Suryapet. The offences alleged against the petitioner are under Sections 318 (4), 336 (2), 34O,316 (5) r/rv.Section 3(5) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita,2023.

2. The facts of the case are that the Tahsildar, Mothey Mandal gave a complaint stating that on 04.O3.2O25 the District Collector, Suryapet and Revenue Divisional Officer, Suryapet have inspected the Tahsildar olfice of Mothey and verified the Passbook Data Correction hles as submitted bv the then Tahsildar. Further, the Drstrict Collector ^.rd "rrqriry t"r- verilied the records submitted by the petitioner with reference to the original pahanies ald found certain fabricated pahanies submitted by this petitioner and mee-seva operator. The petitioner and mee-seva operator colluded with office staff and mis-guided the higher ofhcials. It is also stated in the complaint 2 J I that the Mandal Girdavar and Additional Girda''rrl o1' Mothey Mandal conlessed through their written statemer ts that they have signed and recommended the Passbook D:rtrr Correction files on the,,rdvice and directions of the then Tahr;.rlar, Mothey rvho is petitroner herein. Further, while verihcatrrtr of Dharani Pass Book [)ata Correctron files by the District l,r ]ministralion team, cerLain fabricated documents are found br the District Collector, Srrryapet and also noticed signatures r:r the enquiry reporl of A 2 to A.4 u.hich were attested by tl : peutioner. Hence the complaint was lodged and basing ) 11 the said complainL, the police registered the case against 1he petitioner for the abovr: olfences.

3. Heard Sri Ramesh Babu Vishu,anathula, le r rred counsel flor thc pelitioner and Sri M.Vivekananda Rcrlrly, learncd Assistant Pu blic Prosecutor appcaring for the resp,r .rdents.

4. Thc cc,ntention of learnecl counsel for the pe ir.ioner is that pctrtroner is a law abiding Government servant ri ro setwcd as Tahsildar, Ntothey Mandal frorr. 79.O2.2024 to 30.',)l .2O25 and she is falsel5' implicated in this case. The allegatio c r; against the petitioner are baseless and only because of r,ire political pressure, stre is implicated in this case. The lrt.titione r is a Gazetted officer in the Revenue Department and itcted in her -.rit.,,*txr ( I I i official capacit5r by approving the entries made by subordinate officers A.2 Lo A.4 who are the concerned persons in preparing the data and she made sumrnary enquiry before approving the records in her olficial capacity. Learned counsel furr her contended Lhat the petitioner passed order in her capacrly as Tahsildar and Execulive Magistrate in judicial proceedings. As such, there is protection to the petitioner under the Judges (Protection) Act, 1985 (for short the 'Act') and trial Court is not empowered to take cognizance of the alleged offences against the petitioner. Sections 2 and 3 of the Act, givcs definition of a Judge and additional protcction to Judges which reads as under: "2. De{inition. In this Act, "Judge' means not only every person who is officiatly' designated as a Judge, but also every person- (a) lvho is empo\ycred bY larv to give in any legal proceeding a definitive judgment, or a judgment which, if not appealed against, $,ould be dehnitive, or a judgment which, if confirmed by some other authoritlr, would be definitive; or (b) who is one of a body of persons u,hich body of persons is empowered by law to give such a judgment as is referred to in clause (a). 3, Addttional protection to Judges.-(l) Notwithstanding anything contained in anv other larv for the time being in force and subject to the provisions of sub section (2), no court sha[] entertain or continue anlr civil or criminal proceeding against any person who is or was a Judge for any act, thing or word committed, done or spoken by him u,hen, or in the course of, acting or purporting to act in the discharge of his official or judicial duty or function." 4 \ :46.*'.:*{ '\s'=&4 ''.',.''a - \

5. Learned counsel further contended that petrl (iner being a woman \ ras subjected to hardship making hcr ., sit in the police station overnight for enquiry without prodr-rr i rq her before the concerne d Magistrate. The a1legations againsl, he peritioner are baselcs,s and without obtaining any sar,: ion, she is implicated irL this case. As such, prayed this Cor-rrt to quash the prot ecdings aguinst the peLitioner. 6, On the other hand learned Assistant Pulr.lr: l)roseculor opposed thc pctition slating tirat investigation is:rt ir-ririal stage, the allegalion leveled against the petitioner are ser (,us in nature u,hich requ res thorough investigation and biLr;ing on the confession s[atement of A.2 to A.4 case lvas relai ; t rec[ against the petitionc r-A. 1. At this stage, petitioner is n r entitled for quashing Lht: proccedrngs against her.

7. C-.onsictering the submissions made b1, botlt rhe counsel and the material on record, lhe allegations :rgainst lhe pctitroner-A. 1 is that firstly she along rn ith cttter accused colluded anci fabricated the pahanies for uploadinF the same in the online porlal and when the concerned Dis -r L,:t Collector inspccled th: office, he found irregularities. Adclrr:,_: to t]ris A.2 [o A.4 confer;sed that due to the pressure of A. I I r,:y preparcd the said cla,-a. Therefore, it requires thorough r,tvestjgation. =r-rl7 5 Secondly, though learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that petitioner is protected under thc Act as the petitioner is the Tahsildar and an Executive Magistrate passed orders in j udicial procccdings. as such, she has to he protected under lhe said Act and thc trial Court is not emporvered to takc cognizance of the alleged offences against the petitioner, whereas, the act of pelitioner hcrein is not on the judicial side, it is an administrative function. Further, sanction is not ncccssary at the sLage of registcring the case. Sanction is necessary while taking cognizance by thc trial Court. Therefore, it is not a ground to allow this petition. As there are no merits in this petition, the same is liablc to be dismissed.

8. Accordingly, the Criminal Petilion is dismissed. Miscellaneous petitions, pending, if any, shall stand closed //TRUE COPY// Sd/- A. JAYASREE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR o SECTION OFFICER To, -t\ u)

1. The Addl Judicial First Class lvlagistrate at Suryapet 2. The Station House Officer, IVlothey Police Station, Suryapet Dist 3. Two CCs to the Public Prosecutor, High Court at Hyderabad'(OUT) 4. One CC to the Tahsildar, tvlothey Mandal, Suryapet, Telangana [OPUC] 5 One CC to tr/lr RAMESH BABU VISHWANATHULA, Advocate IOPUC] 6 Two CD CoPies l{('/gh HIGH COURT DATED: 0914712025 ORDER CRLP.No.44'70 of 2025 --':-:::-\ { IJ o t 18 0[T 295 .-;/ \: /;/ it--:.t. :i:-_--::jr_ -C-\' Accordingly the Criminal Petition is D smissed. q n-