The High Court · 2025

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

2. Sri K. Satish, Sub-lnspector of Police, Commissioner's Task Force, Central Zone, Hyderabad. ...Respondent 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 proceedings in C.C.No.355 ot 2017 on the file of Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Nampally, Hyderabad, insofar as the Petitioner/Accused No. 2 is concerned. l.A. NO: 2 OF 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 stay all further proceedings including appearance of the petitioners in C.C.No 355 of 2017 on the file of Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Nampally. Hyderabad, pending disposal of the main. This Petition coming on for hearing upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri Mohmmad Abdul Kalam Siddiqui, Advocate for the Petitioner and the Sri Jithender Rao Veeramala, Addtinai pubtic Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No.1, and none appeared for the Respondent No.2. The Court made the following: ORDER ,/l/ h THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA CRIMI PETITI No.l0360 2025 ORDER: This criminal Petition is filed to quash the proceedings against the petitioner-accused No.2 in cc No.3s5 of 2011 on the file of chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Nampallly, registered for the offences 419,420, 468, 471,413 read with 34 lpc and section 12 of the lndian Passport Act.

2. Heard Sri Mohd. Abdul Kalam siddiqui, learned counsel for the petitioner and sri Jithender Rao veeramalla, learned Additionar Public Prosecutor for the respondent No.1_State. 3- Learned counset for the petitioners has submitted that the petitioner herein is accused No.2 in the case and he is impricated in this case based on the confession of the co-accused and that the case against him is not maintainabte. He further submitted that he was not in rndia at the time of registration of the crime and that he went abroad in 2010 and returned in 2o1g and that there is no prima facie case against the petitioner. He further: submitted that he is not at all responsible for the acts committed by accused No.1 and hence, prayed to quash the proceedings against the petitioner. 2 ETD,J Crl.P. No.10360 ol u25

4. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor has submitted that pursuant to the confession of accused No..l , several items were seized which would prove the offence against accused No.1 and the petitioner herein. He further submitted that accused No.1 and the petitioner are own brothers and were doing business together which was revealed during the course of investigation. Hence, he prayed to dismiss the petition.

5. Perused the record.

6. The recitals of the charge sheet point out that accused Nos.1 and 2 were indulging in preparing fake supporting documents required for obtaining U.S. and other countries Visas for clients viz., bank statements, employment letters of different companies, pay slips, lT returns, Chartered Accountant reports, property documents, fake University letters of U.S. etc., and were submitting the same to U.S. and other consulates to facilitate the clients. The said documents were prepared by using his own computer and printer and rubber stamps on the name of various firms and agencies for that he used to collect a fees of Rs.15,000/- to 20,000/- per head for documentation and Rs.2.00 to 3.00 lakhs, if anyone got VISA. lt is further made out from the charge sheet that the accused No.1 has cenfessed that himself and his own brother Shameemuddin-accused i 1 EfO,J Crl.P. No.10360 of 2025 No.2 (petitioner herein) were preparing all these fake documents of Board of lntermediate, Degree certificates, technical certificates etc., while running business at Malakpet in the name of lRlS Solutions and that his brother got VISA to London by submitting fake documents and that the fake educational documents pertaining to the petitioner herein were also seized. Thus, the said allegations pima facie point out the alleged offences against the petitioner herein. There is a long list of seized items pursuant to the confession of accused No.1 and the petitioner herein is alleged to be a partner and he himself is alleged to have obtained UK Visa by submitting fake documents. The truth or otherwise in the allegations shall fall for consideration before the trial court. Hence, it is not a fit case to quash the proceedings at this stage. As the mafter is of the year 2017 , it is deemed appropriate to direct the concerned court to dispose of the matter at the earliest and the attendance of the petitioners before the trial court shall be dispensed with.

7. Accordingly, the criminal petition is disposed of directing the trial court to dispose of the case at the earliest, preferably, within a period of four (4) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and dispensing with the attendance of the petitioners before trial court provided they are represented by a counsel before the trial 4 ETD,J Crl.P. No.10360 of 2025 court on every date of hearing and shall appear before the trial court whenever their presence is required during the course of trial. Miscellaneous Petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. SD/. A. PRATHIMA ,ffRUE COPY/' OFFICER To

1. The Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Nampally, Hyderabd. 2. The Station Hou'se Officer,Hussainialam Police Station, Hyderabad. 3. Two CCs to the Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad [OUT]

4. Oire CC to SRI trliOHUnAnD ABDUL KAI-AM SlDDlQUl, Advocate [oPUC] 5. Two CD Copies NVI}/Sr\ Y1( a HIGH COURT DATED:1611012025 ORDER CRLP.No.10360 ot 2025 ( oRTHES t4 o a. zrwU. (.. t- * .' , ,i-Pt n C, I ')' \i I DISPOSING THE CRIMINAL PETITION 6 b .f' &*"