The High Court · 2025

Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to grant stay of all further proceedings in CC No 119412O22 on the file of court of the Judicial First Class Magistrate at Nalgonda in the interest of justice. This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of - Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri D.V. Sitharama Murhty Senior Counsel representing Sri Aruva Karthik, Advocate for the Petitioner and Sri M.Ramachandra Reddy, the Additional Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No.1 and Sri Kota Sameer Kumar, for the Respondent No.2. The Court made the following: ORDER --) IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TEI ANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE JUVVADI SRIDEVI CRIMINAL PETITION No.4660 OF 20:l I DATED: 12th DECEMBER,2025 Between: Challa Sreenaiah I'etitioner AND State of Telangana, Through SHO, Nalgonda (l 1'rrwn) Police Station, Nalgonda Town and District and another . Fl( lspondents ORDER: This Criminal Petition is filed by the petitiortr-accused seeking to quash the proceedings agains: him in C.CNo.1194 of 2022 pending on the file of tre learned Judicial First Class [\Iagistrate at Nalgonda, (fcr short 'the learned trial Court') registered for the offence uncl rr Sections 409, 419 and 420 of the lndian Penal Code (for sh rrt 'lpC').

02. Heard Sri D.V.Sitharama Murthy, lear red Senior Counsel, representing Sri Aruva Karthik, Iearned ;ounsel for the petitioner and Sri M.Ramachandra Redrl ,, learned 2 Additional Public Prosecutor for the State as well as Sri Kota Sameer Kumar, learned counsel for the respondent No.2 Perused the record 03(a). The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner- accused is an agent of various insurance companies, namely LlC, ReliGear, and Oriental lnsurance, and is also employed as a Lecturer at Vasavi Degree College, Nakrekal. lt is alleged that the petitioner-accused committed the offence of cheating by personation and used forged documents as genuine with an intention to claim the insurance amount of one SriChalla Saidulu, S/o Challa Bhujangam, who had died in a road accident. After investigation, the Police filed a charge sheet alleging that the petitioner-accused had committed offences punishable under Sections 409, 419' 42O of the lPC. 03(b). Subsequently, the Police filed an additional charge sheet stating that the petitioner-accused had no connection with the alleged acts of impersonation, forgery, or the purported mismatch of the deceased's signatures, and ..) 3 that only an offence under Section 4'l 9 IPC aptreared to be made out. Thereafter, the Police filed a final - rport stating that the "action abated and no charges frame" vr,l rerein it was further mentioned that the deceased, during his ifetime, had taken several insurance policies and used to : fix both his old and new signatures 0a(a). Learned counsel for the petitio rer-accused submitted that the petitioner has no connectiorr whatsoever with the alleged offences lt is contended that lhe learned tVlagistrate had taken cognizance of the charge s; reet filed by the Police, wherein it was stated that a sr_,1 ,plementary charge sheet would be filed upon collectior of further evidence, and the case was numbered as C,C) No.'1 194 of

2022. Subsequently, an additional charge sheet, uas filed by the Police, clearly stating that the petitioner-accurr ed was not involved in the alleged mismatch of the signatur :s and that all the earlier charges stood dropped. 04(b). lt is further submitted that this Cou t, by order dated 08.01.2024 passed in CRL.p.No.757lj of 2023 4 directedthelearnedtrialCourttotakeintoconsiderat|onthe final reporl filed in June 2023. However, the learned trial Court, by order dated 04.04.2024 in CRL.M P'No'71 of 2024' held that it had no power to review its earlier order taking cognizance, and while refusing to accept the final report' disposed of the petition. lt is further submitted that the learned Magistrate is not divested of the power to consider a final report or a supplementary report merely because cognizance had already been taken on the earlier charge

05. With the above submissions, while praying to quash the criminal proceedings against the petitioner- accused relied upon a decision of the Honourable Supreme Court in Rama Chaudhary v. State of Biharl wherein at Paragraph Nos.7 to 1'l it was held that: "f Sub-section (1) of Section 173 of Cr.P.C. makes it clear that every investigation shall be completed without unnecessary delay. Sub-secflon (2) mandates that as soon as the investigation is completed, the officer in charge of the police station shall forward to a 1 Criminal Appeal No of 2oog (Arising out of s'L.P'(CRL) No'370 of 2009 / .-) 5 Magistrate empowered to take cognizance of t rc offence on a police repod, a repoft in the fr> m prescibed by the State Government mentioning I e name of the pafties, nature of information, name' of the persons who appear to be acquainted with t rc circumstances of the case and fufther pafticulars s,t :h as fhe name of the offences that have be n committed, arrest of the accused and details about I is release with or without surelies. Among other sL )- secfions, we are very much concerned about st)- section (B) which reads as under.- "(8) Nothing in this sectrcn shall be deemed to preclude fufther investigation in respect of an offence after a reporl under sub- section (2) has been fonuarded to the Magistrate and, where upon such investigation, the officer in charge of the police station obtains fufther evidence, oral or documentary, he shall forward to the Magistrate a fuiher repoft or repods regarding such evidence in the form prescribed; and the provisions of sub- secllons (2) to (6) shall, as far as may be, apply in relation to such repoft or reporis as they apply in relation to a repoft fontvarded under sub-section (2) " 9) A mere reading of the above provision makes it clear that irrespective of report under sub-section ,: ) forwarded to the Magistrate, if the officer in-charge lf the police station obtains fudher evidence, it s incumbent on his parl to fonuard lhe same to th ) 6 Magistrate with a fufther repoft with regard to such evidence in the form prescribed. !) The above said provision also makes it clear that furlher investigation /s permissible, however, reinvestigation is prohibited. The law does not mandate taking of prior permission from the Magistrate for fufther investigation. Carrying out a fuiher investigation even after filing of the charge- sheet ls a statutory right of the police. Reinvestigation without prior permission is prohibited. On the other hand, furiher investigation ls permlssible. 10) From a plain reading of sub-section (2) and sub- section (8) of Section 173, it is evident that even after submr'sslon of police repori under sub-section (2) on completion of investigation, the police has a ight to "fuiher" investigation under sub-section (B) of Section 173 but not "fresh investigation" or "reinvestigation". The meaning of "Further" is additional; more; or supplemenlal. "Fufther" investigation, therefore, is the continuation of the earlier investigation and not a fresh investigation or reinvestigation to be staded ab initio wiping out the earlier investigation altogether. Sub- secllon (8) of Section 173 clearly envisages that on completion of furiher investigation, the investigating agency has to forvvard to the Magistrate a "further" report and not fresh report regarding the "further" et idence obtained during such investigation. !l) As observed in Hasanbhai Valibhai Qureshl vs. Stafe of Gujarat and Others, (2004) 5 SCC 347,-th-e- pime consideration for fufther investigation is to arrive at the truth and do real and substantial justice. 7t 7 The hands of investigating agency for furt, er investigation should not be tied down on the grounc of mere delay. ln other words, the mere facl that tlt',re may be further delay in concluding the trial should tot stand in the way of fufther investigation if that wct rld help the courl in arriving at the truth and do real e td subsfanlla/ as well as effective justice."

06. On the other hand, learned Addit r nal Public Prosecutor appearing for the State-respondent l,l :.1 as well as the learned counsel for the respondent No 2: contended that there are triable issues and factual asF,(,cts to be examined by the learned trial Court and it is not e fit case to quash the proceedings against the petitioner at lt is juncture and the matter is to be decided after conducting .rial by the learned trial Court and prayed to dismiss il^i; Criminal Petition

07. Having regard to the submissions marj > on either side and upon a perusal of the material available () .l record, it is evident that both the supplementary charge she et and the final report unequivocally exonerate the petition,: -accused. The record clearly discloses that the addrtional ctr rrge sheet filed on 24.022023 categoricalty states that the petitioner- \ 8 accused had no involvement in the alleged acts of impersonation, forgery, or in any manner connected with the purported mismatch of the signatures of the deceased. Furthermore, the final report dated 24.02.2023, which was received by the learned IMagistrate on 30.06.2023, concludes that no offence is made out against the petitioner and accordingly recommends that the action be abated

08. lt is a well-settled principle of law that a learned Magistrate cannot disregard a supplementary report filed in exercise of the statutory power under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C The learned trial Court, in refusing to consider the final report on the erroneous premise that doing so would amount to a "review," acted contrary to the mandate of Section 173(8) Cr.P.C. Once the investigating agency itself asserts that the petitioner-accused is not involved in the alleged offences, the continuation of proceedings becomes untenable, unless there exists any contrary material against the petitioner- accused, which is conspicuously absent in the present case When the Police, upon further investigation, conclude that no charge is made out against the petitioner, insisting on the I continuation of trial would serve no purpose, as 1re material collected during investigation clearly negates the: llegations.

09. The offence of cheating by personatir rn requires specific material to substantiate that the petitiorr )r_accused pretended to be another person and thereby rr duced the delivery of property The final report unequivoca ly records that no such act was committed and that the: deceased himself had been using different signatures. Thus, the essential ingredients necessary to constitute 1l e offence under Section 419 lpC are absent. When he entire I I investigative material exonerates the petitioner, )ompelling him to undergo the ordeal of trial would amount t: an abuse of the process of law

10. ln view of the facts and circumstan::s of the case and considering the legal principles laid dor rn by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, this Court is of the ::nsidered opinion that the continuation of the criminal procss6lrr. against the petitioner-accused wourd amount to arr abuse of the process of law, and the same is liable to be qua, ;hed. 10 I

11. Accordingly, this Criminal petition is allowed and the criminal proceedings against the petitioner_accused in C.C.No.1194 of 2022 pending on the fite of the learned Judicial First Class Magistrate, Nalgonda, are hereby quashed. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed /l //TRUE COPY// Sd/- A. SREENIVASA REDDY ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ,,.(v SECTION OFFICER To,

1. The Judicial First Class Magistrate at Nalgonda 2. The Station House Officer, Police Station, Nalgonda 3. Two CCs to the PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, High Court at Hyderabad 4. One CC to Sri Aruva Karthik, Advocate [OPUC] 5. One CC to Sri Kota Sameer Kumar, Advocate IOPUC] 6. Two CD Copies (our) TP (, HIGH COURT DATED: 1211212025 - =:-:_-\\- , ,_ ,, i,/, , .\\. ,. ,r, " .,, (; tr] t? rci ynl ''... +\ /') - \- \t?'i _-// ORDER CRLP.No.4660 ot 2024 CRIMINAL PETITION lS ALLOWT:D