The High Court · 2025

1. The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana at HYderabad.

2. Y. Shailaia. Wo Y. Venkatesh, aged 42 yea$. Occ.Director of Little Kingdom School, R/6 H.No.G1, G3, Ballard Livings, Kakatiya Naga,, Habsiguda' Hyderabad. ...Respondents/ComPlai nant Petition under Section 528 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of criminal Petition, the High court may be pleased to quash the order dated 19-07-2023 passed in Crl-M.P.No.2957 of 2014 in C.C.Nb.782 ol 2o'14 on the file lV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Nampally, Hyderabad. t.A. NO: oF 2025 Petition under Section 528 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of criminal Petition, the High c.ourt may be pleased to stay all further proceedings in c.c.No.782 ot 2O14 on the lile lV Additional Chief M-etropolitan Magistrate, Nampally, Hyderabad' pending disposal of the criminal petition. This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Smt. Shalreen Sultana, Advoeate for the Petitioners and Sri Jithender Rao Veeramalla, Additional Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No.1 and none app€,ared for the Respondent No.2. The Court made the following: ORDER 1-.4 :r .4tir, j!fa.a..--. -.'.- ,;s$Js$#lr; ';-r,., THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI Criminal Petition No.9659 of 2025 ORDER This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short 'the BNSS') seeking quashment of order dated 19.06.2023 in Crl.M.P.No.2957 of 2014 in C.C.No.782 of 2014 on the file of the lV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad.

2. I have heard Smt.Shaheen Sultana, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr.Jithender Rao Veeramalla, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, representing the respo ndent No - 1 -State.

3. The brief facts of the case are that the second respondenUde facto complainant filed a private complaint on 2O.1O.2O14 against petitioners Nos. 1 and 2, alleging offences such as cheating, criminal breach of trust, and criminal trespass. lt was further alleged that the petitioners threatened her and interfered with the functioning of the school. Upon consideration, the Court took cognizance of the case for offenoes punishable under Sections 448, 427, and 506 of the lndian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter, "lPC").

4. Learneo counsel for the petitioners submitted that, during the coume of trial, the petitioners filed Crl.M.P. No. 2957 of 2014 under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Ad., 1872, seeking to have the 2 Nr&, Crlp_9559_2025 Relinquishment Deed (Ex.Pl) and the Receipt (Ex.p2) referred to the Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL) for signature comparison, on the ground that both documents were fabricated. However, by order dated

19.06.2tr23, the IV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate dismissed the petition, observing that the signatures of petitioner No.1 on Exs.pl and P2, when compared with admitted signatures, were found to tally, and ther,-'fore a forensic examination was unnecessary. 5. Counsel further contended tha! pursuant to information obtained under the Right to Information Act, 2005, it was revealed that the stamp papers on which Ex.p1 and *.p2 were executed had been sold without the purchaser,s name or signafure being recorded, thereby :;uggesting that they were .fake stamp papers., It was also arguecl that the complainant (respondent No.2) gave inconsistent statements in chief-examination and cross-e)Gmination, particularly regarding whether the petitioners had signed the documents in her presence and as to who had actually purchased the stamp papers. 6. On the other hand, the learned Additional public prosecutor supportecl the impugned order of the Magistrate and prayed for dismissal of the petition. 7. I trave perused the materials on record and considered the .submissions of the learned counsel. 3 NTR,J clp-9659-2025

8. The petitioners contended that respondent No'2/de facto complainant had foisted a false case against them by relying upon forged and fabricated documents' It was alleged that petitioner No'1 had purportedly executed/ Ex'Nos' P1 and P2' namely' a Relinquishment Deed and a Receipt' both dated 13'04'2013' The entries made by the stamp vendor reflected that the stamp papers were purchased in the name of accused No'1' 9. During trial, the petiUoners submitted that the complainant' examined as PW-l, had relied on and marked the said documents as Ex.Nos. P1 and P2, which they claimed to be fabricated' Accordingly' they sought a direction to send the documents to the Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL) for comparison of the disputed signatures with the admitted signatures of the accused' The trial Court' however' rejected this request. It observed that under Section 73 of the Indian Evidence Ac., L872, the @urt itself is empowered to compare disputed signatures with admitted signatures' Upon comparison' the Couft found that the signatures appearing on Exs' Pl and P2 tallied' to the naked eye, with the signatures of petitioner No'l on ttrc memo of appearance as well as on proceedings recorded under Section 251 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973' In view of this observation' and considering the stage of trial at which the petition had been filed' the trial Court declined the Prayer' 't ) \ 4 NTR,., Crlp_g559_2025

10. In the instant petition, leamed counsel _fior the pefitioneB argue(j that information obtained under the Right to Information Act, 2005 disclosed that the deeds in question had been executed on .fake stamp papers.'on that basis, it was urged that forensic examination of the signatures was essential. This CouG however, was not persuaded by this contention. Further, the fact that the impugned order dismissing the earlier application had been passed way back on 19.06.2023, and that the petitioners were challenging the same at a belated stage and merely because a new counsel had entered appearE'nce and contending that earrier counser faired to take appropriate steps, the petition could not be entertained as a mafter of course.

11. Frrr the aforesaid, finding no merit, the present petition is liable to be anrj is hereby dismissecl. Pending miscellaneou_s applications, if any, shall stand closed. ,iB?',#383,1'#1,-. //TRUE COPYII SECTION OFFICER To, 1,;;li*ji[ffi$fl [",.I:iflHffi"[?i?"rJ,1::t.f i. ?'15 33 fo,,!;;.tn;n"un u. surtana, Advocate topucl ABK/PSL "anganaa, HIGH COURT _ _ DATED:.31IOV(2O21 ORDER CRLP.No.965{| ot 2025 ) -r t t{E S 0 5 {:[B ?t2! * ;; ( * \r DISMISSING :l T}{E CRIMINAL PETITION b