The High Court · 2025

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

2. Sri. K. Lakshminarayana, S/o. Kommalu, Aged. 59 years, Occ. General Manager Sri Rampur Area, Singareni Collieries Company Ltd., R/o. H-No. 1-1-1102, Sidharthanagar, Kazipet, Hanamkonda-506003 Warangal Urban District. ...RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANTS 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 atlow this Petition quashing the C.C. No. 3701 of 2020 on the file of V Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate at Warangal. l.A. NO: 1OF 2021 Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C prayrng that in the clrcumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to stay all further proceedings in C.C No 370'1 of 2020 on the file of V Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate at Warangal including the appearance of accused No.1 to 3 pending disposal of the above Criminal Petition. This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri R.K. Chitta, Advocate for the Petitioners and of Sri M. Vivekananda Reddy learned Asst Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No.'1 and None appeared for the Respondent No.2. The Court made the following: ORDER THE HONOURABLE SRI .'USTICE K.SURENDER CRIMII{AL PEIITION No.5657 OF 2O2t ORDER: This Criminal Petition is frled by the petitioners, seeking to quash proceedings in C.C.No.37OI of 2O2O, on the hle of V Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, at Warangal.

2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri M.Vivekalanda Reddy, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the respondent - State. Perused the record.

3. The 2"a respondent hled a complaint on O4.O7 .2019 against the 1"t petitioner stating that he has forged his signature on a promissory note as if 2.d respondent had obtained a loan of Rs.3,0O,OOO/- on 18.10.2008 from 1"r petitioner, at Hasanparthy. A false document was llled and ex- pa-rte order was obtained and later, an execution petition to attach the residential house of 2"d respondent, at Kazipet was filed. The entire proceedings were not known to the 2"d respondent-. Having come to know that he had suffered an ex- parte order, the 2"d respondent flled a written statement, along with a petition under Order IX Rule 13 of CPC to set aside tle ex-parte order on 19.07.2016. However, the petition was 2 returned for the reason of typographical errors. Therea_fter, the petition was re-submitted with a delay of 4g7 days. The ground taken before the Court for the delay was that the counsel on record did not inform the 2"d respondent about the proceedings. Accordingly, the delay petition was dismissed.

4. The 2"a respondent approached this Court by hling C.R.P.No. 1586 of 2019, and this Court, by order dated

02.Ol.2O2O, dismissed the petition frled by the 2"d respondent against the orders of the trial Court refusing to condonei the delay of 487 days.

5. Meanwhile, a criminal complaint was filed on O4.O7.2019. The Police investigated the case and fr_led a charge sheet mainly on the basis of the report of Truth Labs that the writings found on the promissory note were not those of the 2.d respondent.

6. Learned ' counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that the case is purely civil in nature. Only to force the petitioners to settle the disputes in the Civil Court, a criminat complaint was f ed. The 2.a respondent had knowledge about the ex-parte decree in July, 2O16 itself. However, after the Civil Court refused to entertain. the petition to set aside_the ex_parte 3 order, a criminal complaint was filed. Further, the basis for the frling the charge sheet is the Forensic Science Laboratory/Truth Labs report, showing that the promissory note was fabricated. However, the original promissory note was not sent to the FSL, and only a photocopy was sent. The original promissory note was filed before the Civil Court, which is marked as Ex.A-1.

7. I,e arned counsel further submits that :one of the ingredients of Section 42O of IPC are made out. He relied on the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in Suryalakshmi Cotton Mtlls Ltd. v. Rajvir Industries Ltd.r and Vesa Holdings (P) Ltd v. State of Kerala2.

8. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the 2"d respondent would submit that the 2.d respondent was not aware of the proceedings. Once he came to kn,tw about the proceedings, he took steps to prosecute the civil case and also filed a criminal complaint. The very allegation that the promissory note is fabricated was found to be correct during the investigation and accordingly, the charge sheel. was filed. ' lzooay n scc ozs t lzotsy t scc zol 4 r-i;

9. He relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Central Bureau of Investigation vs. Aryan Singh BIC3, wherein the Hon'trle Supreme Court held that, the High Court, while exercising powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C., is not required to conduct a mini trial to decide the correctness or otherwise of tJre allegations made against the accused.

10. karned counsel further submits that the petition under Section 47 of CPC was hled before the trial Court and it is now pending trial. The relevant witnesses were also examined in the said proceedings. The basis for the 2"a respondent to lodge a complaint is that the promissory note was fabricated. In fact, the proceedings are now ongoing, before the trial Court, and the genuineness of the promissory note will be decided by the trial Court.

11. Insofar as the petitioner Nos.2 and 3 are concerned, they were the signatories to the promissory note. The sigrratories to a promissory note cannot be made as co-conspirators, since there are no allegations leveled against A-2 and A-3, that they conspire to cheat 2.d respondent. It is the specific case that tlte promissory note was fabricated by A-1. Further, there are no r 2023 t-awsuit (sc) 344 t 5 allegations of any kind of inducement by the 2n,1 ard 3rd petitioners or that they have fabricated the documents. The witnesses to the promissory note cannot be nulcted with criminal liability, either for cheating or for the fabr-ication of the said document in the present circumstances of the case. 12. Accordingly, the Crimina_l Petition is partly allowed, quashing the proceedings against the petitioner Nos.2 and 3. All the defenses raised by A-1 can be agitated in the Court below. Miscellaneous applications pending, if an1., shall stand closed. To SD/. K. AMMAJI DEPUTY REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// t\ \j SECTION OFFICER

1. The V Additional Judicral First Class Magistrate at Warangal

2. The Station House Officer, Hasanparthy Police Station, UJarangal District

3. One CC to Sri R K Chitta. Advocate [OPUC] 4 Two CCs to PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad IOUTI

5. Two CD coptes. It,II,B/PSL Yy HIGH COURT DATED:1210312025 ORDER CRLP.No.5657 of 2021 CRIMINAL PETITION IS PARTLY ALLOWED 3 o o ( i ';' a$s(eA W*