The High Court · 2025

Smt. H.Prameela, Wo. Srinadh, Aged I\/andal, Nalgonda District. 57 years, Occ. Tahsildar, Nidamanoor .....Respondent No.1 ...Respondent No.2/Complainant Petition under Section 528 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of criminar-peiition, the Hign Corrt ;;y oe _ _t9 .quash the proceedings against the petitioner/Accused no.i in p^lgr.:9d cc.No.597 12024 on the.fire- of rvragistrate of First crass: Nidmanoor, Nalgonda District (cr No.23r 2022 on the firJof porice Nidmanoor,y roi oii"n"" under Secs.409, 406, 420, 468, 471,166, 167, i20(B) R/w.Se c.34 tpi. -Judiciai- l.A. NO:2 aF 2A2s Petition under section 4BZ of cr.p .c praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of criminar petition, the High court rnry o" pleased to stay all the further proceedings incruding the presence" of the aicGeo against the Petitioner /Accused no.+ in b.c.No.sg1 Do24 on the file of Hon,bre Judicial First class Magistrate: Nidamnoor. This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the fuiemorancium of Grounds of Criminal petition and upon [u"'ing the arguments.gf.-ll .9^ANIL KIRAN KUMAR, Advocate foi il'" b"tition"r and STi D ARUN KUlvlAR' the Additional Public Prosecrtoi tot the State of Telangana on behalf of the ii..p".0"", f.to t anO None appeared for the Respondent No 2' The Court made the following: ORDER THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA CRIMINAL PETITION No.6O42 of 2o25 ORDER: This Criminal Pctition is filed seeking the Courl to quash the proceedings against the petitioncr/ accused No'4 in C.C.No.597 of 2024 on the file of thc learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Nidmanoor, Nalgonda District' registered for the offences punishable under Sections 4O9' 406, 42O, 468, 471, 166, 167 and 12O(b) read lr'jth Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (tor short 'tPC)' The brief facts of the case are that on 16 'O2 '2022 ttL

2. 14:30 hrs, a complaint in Telugu $ras received from respondent No.2, Tahsildar of Nidmanoor Mandal (Lettcr No' 241l2O2l.datecl 16.O2.2O22), addressed to the Station House Officer, Nidmanoor, regarding forged signaturr:s in official records related to government lands in Th ummadam village initially referrcd by the during 2016-17 . The matter Revenue Divisional Officer, Miryalgnda (Letter No B/ l\al2022 "vas d.ated 27 .Ol .2022\. The complainL lnvolves retired Tahsildzrr Sri T. Vidya Sagar, who served in Nidmanoor lrom June 2OO5 2 SKS,J Crl.P.No.604.2 of 2O2S lo February 2O09 and later in peddavoora until his retirement on 31.01.2010. On 06.01.2O22, he was summoned by the District Vigilance Officer, Nalgonda, concerning alleged frrrgeries on Assessment Certificate s lor lands in Thummadam village. Based on preliminary findings, the Vigilance Oflicer foru,ardcd the case to the Station House Officer, Nidmanoor, for investigation and appropriate legal action. .fhe complainl iclerrtifies five lrrrged patta Certihcates issued in 2OO7 for lands in Thummadam village to: (1) Bommu Adilaxmi (Sy.No.54 1, 2.20 grs, Cerr. No.C/ t2SZ /2OOZ|, (2) Bommu Adi Laxmi (S,y.No.541, 2.20 gts, Cerr. No.C/ 1256/2OO7), (3) Marthi Surcnder Rccldy (Sy.No.gd., t.Og grs, Cerr. No.C/2344 /2OO7), (4) Marthi Swctha (Sy.No.840, 1.lO grs, Cerr. No.Cl5565/2O07), and (5) Marthi Nirmala (Sy.No. 1O72, 1.20 gts, Cert. No.C/3063l2OOZ). Aggrieved thereby, the pe titioner/ accusecl No.4 filed the present criminal petition.

3. Ileard Sri G. Anil Kiran Kumar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner as well as Sri D. Arun Kumar, learncd Additional public prosecutor appearing on behall of respondent No. I _ State. Though noticc served upon respondent No.2, none appeared on her behalf. -r- SKS,J Crl.P.No.6042 of 2025

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted l-hat thc petitioner, who served as Tahsildar of Nidamanoor from 2O16- 18, had no role in the issuance of the allcged fake Patta certilicates in the year 2007, which preda[ed his tenure and that his involvement was limited to digitally signing bulk rccords during the Dharani data migration basecl ou existing entries in Webland software, without biometric authenLication or manual data entry, which rvas handled bv subordinate staff. He further submitted that there is no evidence ol criminal intent, personal gain, or alteration of official rccords by the petitioner, nor any specific allegation Iinking hirn directly to the forgery and that the allegations uudcr Scctions 4O9, 406, 166, and 167 IPC are therefore un\4'arrantcd and lack factuai basis.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended th.rt thc petitioner was named as accused No. 4 much later, allegedly due to pressure lrom influential persons. TI-re petilioncr has no prior criminal record and has been subjectcd to departmental inquiry. Fur[her, thc casc sulfers from an unexplained delay of nearly 15 years from thc datc of thc alleged acts. Therefore, he prayed the Court to cluash thc 4 SKS,J Crl.P.No.6042 of 2O25 proceedings against the petitioner by allowing this criminal pc tl t lon

6. On thc othcr hand, learned Additional public prosecutor oprltosccl tl'r<'sriltmissions made by the learned counsel for thc pctilioncr srating that the petitioner, while serving as Tahsildar, uploaded entries into the Dharani portal u,ithout veril-r,ing rl-rc' authenticitv of supporting documents. It is allrgccl Lhat I h is lapsc enabled accused Nos.6 to 9 to valid3tc forgcd Assignmcnt Pzttta Certihcates claimed to have been issu<'cl in '2OO7. A rcport of the District Collector dated Oa.06.20'22 highlighted that these certificates dilfercd signifit:anLly lirrm gcnuine certificates issued under tl.re 4rh Phitsc Assignmcltt Programme, both in format and securit_v featurcs. LJascd on this, responsibility was fixed on specific officials, inclucling Tahsildars A-3 to A 5. Though no direct rolc \\.as zrttributed to the pctitioner in issuing fakc certillcates, it r.r'as argued that his failure to verify thc documents contribu[ed to the irrcgularity. Therefore, at this srage, quashing of procccdings against the petitioner does not arisc anci the same requires trial. Hence, he prayed the Court tc, dismiss rhr. r riminal pelition. 5 SKS,J Crl.P.No.6()42 of 2025

7. Upon hearing the submissions of both thc learned counsel and on careful perusal of the material on record, it is evident that the petitioncr is arraycd as accused N<;.4 and rhc solc allegation against the petitioner is that, whilc serving as Tzrhsildar, he uploaded certain land records related to accuscd No.9 into the Dharani Portal u,ithout verilving their genuineness. The record indicates that the District Collector, Nalgonda, conducted an enquiry and concluded that the Assignment Patta Certificales produced by Accused Nos.6 to 9 were not genuine. Consequently, the Pattadar passbooks iind revenue entries pertaining to 4-6 and A-8 were cancellcd. Hou'ever, the documents relating to A-9 have not bcen cancellcd thus far due to the pendency of a writ pctition fiied by A 9 bcfore this Court. Therefore, as on date , the documcnts in question stand unrevoked in the ofhcial records.

8. It is furlher noted that the chargc shect primarily zrttribute s culpability to accused Nos.6 to 9, with substanLial allegations also made against Accuscd No.3, who is stated to have becn involved in other irregularities and is facing trial in Crime No. ll of 2017. In contrast, there are no specilic or direct allegations indicating that the pctiiioner had knou,lt:cige 6 SKS,J Crl.P.No.6042 oI2O2S 't of the forgccl n.ture .l accused No.9,s documents or that he ivas complicit in their crcation. The petitioner claims to have relied on ph.1,sir:al rccords that vrere available at the timc ol cia,rta migratiorr into tlrc Dharani portal and contends that his role rr,,as limite(l to uploading pre_existing entries. Notablv, thcre is no cxprcss statutory requirement brought to the notice oI this Cotrrt mandating an indepcndent enqurry by thc Tahsildar [;efrrre suc[-r r.ligiral intcgration. [ac t s, In light ol rhese

9. thc invocation of Sections 409, 406, 166, and 167 lpc against the petitioner appears unfounclcd. Tltcrc arr: no allcgations of dishonest intcntion, misappropriation - falsification. or abusc of official position [hat u,olrltl attri.l(.1 tht: ingredicnts of these offences. Thc proceedings agailtst thc petitioner rest solely on his procedural role in i,rpdating records that had been in existence for over zr <lecadc elnd not on an,v act of forgery or liaudulent certilication. I lt-nce, rhis Court is of the opinion that continuation of t.riminzrl procecclings against the petitioner amounts lo an alruse o[ the process of larv. Therefore, the proceedings agairrst the pctitioner are liable to be quashed. 7 SKS.J Crl.P.No.6042 of 2O25 I0. Accordingly, this Criminal Petition is allos,ed and the procecdings against the petitioner in C.C.No.597 of 2024 on the file oI the learned Judicial Magistratc of F irst Class, Nidmanoor, Nalgonda District , are here by quashed. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed SD/. MOHD.ISTfAiL DEPUTY REGISTRAR //TRUE COPYII SECTION OFFICER '1 . The Judicial First class Magistrate: Nidamnoor 2 The Station House Officer, Nidmanoor police Station, Nalgonda District. 3. One CC to Sri. G Anil Kiran Kumar, Advocate [OpUC] 4. Two CCs to the Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana al Hyderabad [OUT]

5. Two CD Copies To, GzuPSL M. HIGH COURT DATED:1 910612025 /{:ArsE1so .) 2 5 ,lult 2P5 I fe .\- t--,a 17. ur f '' $ ) z ri' \: ORDER CRLP.No.6042 ot 2025 ALLOWING THE CRIMINAL PETITION b