The High Court · 2025

Nethala LakshmiKantham, D/o Nethala Sambayya, aged about 57 years, Occ: T_eacher Working at Tribal Welfare High School, YN Pakala, KoyyJru Mandal, Visakhaptnam District, Shown in the Charge sheet as Accused No.1O by name Smt.N.Lakshmi Kantham @ V.kantham v ...RESPONDEN T/PETITIONER/A.1 O Petition under Section 528 of BNSS praying that n the circumstances stated in the Pet tion, the High court may be ft"isea t,] I ost /list the matter under the being caption the order passed by this hon'bre ccu t in M.p..No.12489 OF 2O11Dated: 06 03 2025 This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing tl re l\rlemorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petitron and upon hearing the argurr,: tts of Sri DEEPAK MlsRA, Advocate for the Petitioner in crl.petition and Reslr,>r dent in r.A.No..i of 2025 and of Sri K.Srinivas, the special public prosecutor fo t re cBl on behalf of the Sole Respondent in crl.petition and petitioner in LA.No.1 cf 2O2S. The Court made the following: COMMON ORDER THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA I.A.No.1 of 2o25 Inl and CRIMINAL PRTITION No.12489 of 2O1l COMMON ORDER: This Court is inclined to dispose of both the Criminal Pe ti tion and the Interlocutory Application by way of this common order, as both arise from the same set of facts and lcgal issues.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties herein are referred to as arrayed in I.A.No.1 of 2025 I.A.No.1 of 2025 is hled under the caption 'for being

3. mentioned' praying this Court to verify order dated

06.03.2025 passed by this Court in Crl.P.No.12489 ol 201 1

4. Heard Sri K. Srinivaq, iearned Special Public Prosecutor for petitioner/respondent/ State, and Sri Deepak Mishra, learned counsel for respondent I petitioner I accused No. 1 0. 2 SKS,J Crl.P.l o. t2489 of 2011 !

5. Learnetl Special Public Prosecutor for Ct] i submitted that Criminal Petition No.12489 of 2O1l was LL,:e rd by the Court on 11.02.2025, and judgment was reserverl and later pronounccd on 06.03.2025, allowing the 6rr:t tion and quashing proceedings against the respondent (A-10) in C.C.No.4 of 2OO7 before the Special Judge for ( BI Cases, Hyderabad. Hc lurther submitted that the preso'lt petition was filed seeking modification of that order on the q: ound that thc rcspondent had oblained the relief by commit :r 3 fraud on the Court throLrgh misrepresentation and false s atements. Referring to t-he pleadings in the quash petition, 1Le pointed out that the respondent claimed her namb v-,:r "Nethala Lakshmi Kantham" and denied ever being kn,;r,n as "V. Kantham" or being the wife of V.H.T. Rama Rao, stating she was unmarricd. She also denied approaching Synl cate Bank for any ioan and claimed the PAN mentioned r the loan papers did not belong to hcr.

6. Learnecl Special Public Prosecutor furthel submitted that these stzrtements were false and pointed oLr that the charge sheet clearly identified her as "Smt. Lakshrn Kantham @ V. Kantharn." In fact, in the sarne petition, srl'r admitted 3 SKS'J Crt.P.No.124E9 of 2()l1 that the charge sheet referred to her with the alias "V. Kantham," yet she contradicted herself by denying any association with that name. He further stated that during the hearing of the quash petition, the respondent failcd to file any proper identity documents like Aadhar, Voter ID, or Passport. Only unclear photocopies of educational certif-rcates were submitted, which were neither legible nor conclusive. He further submitted that the prosecution had inlormed the Court during arguments that the respondent was named in the charge sheet only after detailed investigation and collection of evidence and that this submission was rccorded in para 6 of the order of this Court. However, since the judgment was reserved on the same day of hearing, the prosecution could not present the relevant documents before the Court. These documents, he stated, were already filed q,ith the trial Court along with the charge sheet. He further submitted that the Aadhar Card of the respondent shows her name as "Venkatapragada Lakshmi Kantam," and lists her husband as "Venkatapragada Hanuman Taraka Ramarao" (i.e., V.H.T. Rama Rao), which matches the Aadhar details of A-9. This clearly contradicted her claim of being unmarried. 4 SKS,J Crl.P.]\ (,. 12489 of 2011 ) 7 . Learned Special h-rblic Prosecutor contend t'c that that the identity card produced by the respondent c uring the quash proceedings did not mention her father's () rusband's name and appeared labricatcd and that no relir L le identity proof like Aadhar, Passport, or Service Book ,r'as filed, indicating suppression of material facts. He adr lt:, I that the charge sheet furthcr cstablished her farnily conncr li rn with A 6, Mr. VNSC Bosc, who is the brother of A-9. Th.r r ospondent deliberately relie d only on pre -marriage educatir n al records and withheld pos[-marriagc identiry documents lo r rislcad the Court. Further, regarding thc loan transaction, llt'submitted that the responclenL clcnicd obtaining the loan, clzL r ring it was taken by "one V. Kantham-" However, the rrle sLigation revealed that her photograph and signature wer( I1 the loan application. Specimen signatures collected dur in 3 the trial matched those on t he loan documents. The .l )vernment Examiner of (Juestioned Documents (GEQD), in a -c port dated

22.O7 .2006, opined that both sets of signatures '"\' ( r I authored by the same 1lerson, establishing her direct involvt n rent in the fraudulent loan transaction and that the loan i,r rount was credited to her account, and relevant banking cocuments, including credit and dcbit vouchers and signatur(' ( 1rds, were 5 SKS'J Crl.P.No.12489 of 2()11 collected and sent for forensic examination. The GEQD's report conlirmed the signatures matched those of the respondent. Therefore, he prayed the Court to modify the impugned order by allowing this Interlocutory Application and consequently, prayed to dismiss the criminal petition.

8. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent/ accused No. iO submitted that the present application filed by the prosecution seeking modihcation of the Irnal order dated 06.03.2025, passed under Section 482 CrPC (now Section 528 BNSS), was legally not maintainable and proceduraliy barred and that once a judgment is passed under Section 482, the same Court cannot review or alter it in view of the bar undcr Section 362 CrPC, and the only remedy for an aggrieved part5r is to approach the Hon'ble Supreme Court. He further submitted that the 1egal position regarding recall or review of orders in criminal matters is well settled. In support of his submissions, he relied upon the recent judgment of the Hon'bie Suprem Court dated 16.05.2025 in Raghunath Sharma & Others vs. State of Haryana, stating that Section 362 CrPC places a near-absolute bar, with very limited exceptions, only to prevent abuse of process or to meet the 6 SKS,J Crl.P N, . 12449 of 2011 -i .l ends of justice. He further submitted that ercr a cursory reading of the prosecution's prescnt applicalio 1 and the original judgment did not disclose any such :xceptional circumstances that would justify invoking such p,ov'ers.

9. Learned counsel further submitted thrrt the main grievance of the prosecution is that ,l e alleged misrepresentation by the respondcnt regardin5l I Ler marital status, had already been considcred by the :lcurt in the original proceedings. In paragraph 6 of the firL:l order, the Court had noted both the claim of the prosecutir n that the respondent u,as the wife of A-9, and the rtLa im of the respondent t.hat she was unmarried. It was c;t:a r, he said, that the Court had applied its mind to both ,;i les of the argument before passing the order. He further -righlighted that in paragraph 7 of the order, the Court g.r' e its final frndings, concluding that there was no sufficier I naterial to link the respondent to the offence. This Court -:a 1 relied on documeqts submitted, such as school certificates. s rowing her name as "Nethala Lakshmi Kantham," her emp o) ment as a teacher in the tribal welfare department, and th: irck of any 7 SKS,J Crl.P.No.12489 of 2011 direct evidence connecting her to the alleged fraudulent activity 1O. Learned counsel for the respondent contended that that even assuming there was any misstatement regarding marital status, it was not material to the decision and that the order was not based on whether she was married or not, but rather on the lack of substantive evidence. Therefore, the petition failed to meet the standard of fraud or suppression required to overcome the statutory bar under Section 362 of Cr.P.C. He further contended that the prosecution had full opportunity over a period of fourteen years to submit its objections and evidence and that the claim that they were denied a chance to produce documents was contrary to the case record and the order itself. He denied all allegations of fraud, fabrication of identity documents, and contempt, stating that the respondent had maintained consistent identity documents and service records, which were also reflected in the charge sheet. He added that the loan in question had already been repaid long before the quash petition was filed. Therefore, he prayed the Court to dismiss the present Interlocutory Application. 8 SKS,J Crl.P.l:. 2489 of 2()I1 \ 1 1. In light of the submissions made by both t[ t: ]carned Special Pubiic Prosecutor and the learned cout s rl lor the respondent/ accused No.l0, and upon a careful p''r'r tsal of the material available on record, it appears that r h I present Interlocutory Application has been filed on thc sir rund that crucial documents, which are relevant to estab i:; r whether Nethala Lakshmi Kantham and V. Kantham arc ()r (' and [he same person, were either not placed before the (]( 'r rt or were not properiy considered. Both parties have plac' :l on rccord documents that are claimed to support thcil rcspective versions. The prosecution has produced documents indicating that "Venkatapragada Lakshmi Kantham," t lrc rr'ife of "Venkatapragada Hanuman Taraka Rama Rao," s tho same individual as "V. Kantham," who is named i I lhe loan documents zr.nd in the charge sheet. [n cr I] Lrast, the respondent, in her quash petition, claimed th rt she is "Nethala Lakshmi Kantham," is unmarried, :r r' l l-ras no connection whatsoever with V.H.T. Rama Rao olt rlh the loan in question.

12. The material placed on record includes an r.rr:lhar Card showing the name "Venkatapragada Lakshmi Karr I I r:rm," with ;."" 9 SKS'J crl.P.I{o. 124a9 0f 2011 her husband's name as V.H.T. Rama Rao, and a PAN card bearing the name 'Nethala Lakshmi Kantham." The loan application submitted to Syndicate Bank refers to "V Kantham, Wlo V.H.T. Rama Rao" as the applicant. Meanwhile, the respondent filed educational certihcates, including her 10fi class certificate, reflecting her name AS "Nethala Lakshmi Kantham," and asserted that she is employed as a teacher in the Tribal Welfare Department and has no involvement in the alleged offence.

13. These inconsistencies in the identity and marital status of the respondent raise serious disputed questions of fact. Though this Court, in its order dated 06.03.2025 in Crl.P.No. 12489 of 2011, observed that the respondent was not \ \ connected with the alleged offence, the subsequent material placed before the Court now indicates that there is suffrcient ground to consider that "Nethala Lakshmi Kantharn" and "V. Kantham" may be the same person. Such disputed questions of fact, particulariy relating to identity and involvement in the offence, cannot be conclusively adjudicated in proceedings under Section 482 CIPC (now Section 528 BNSS), and must 10 SI(S,J Crl-Plr 12489of2()11 be properly examined by the trial Court during tlrt course of tria1.

14. In vieu,- of the above, this Court is of th, : , :onsidered opinion that the order dated 06.03.2025 in Crl. P {, r. 1 2489 of 201 1 is liable to be set aside

15. Accordingly, this Interlocutory Application r.e ., I.A.No.1 of 2025 is allowed, the order dated 06.03.2O25 js, rerebv set aside, and consequently, Criminal Petition No.12.!t 9 of 201L stands dismissed. As a sequei, miscellaneous petitions penriir g, if any, shall stand closed. A SiF EENIVASA REDDY SISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// lECflON OFFTCER To

1. The Special Judge for CBI Cases, Hyderabad. 2. The Station House Officer, CBI/SPE, Hyderabad. 3. Two CCs to Sri Srinivas Kapatia, the Special Public Prcs e;utor, High court for the sate of Telangana, at Hyderabad [OUT]

4. One CC to SRl. DEEPAK MISRA, Advocate [OPUC] 5. Two CD Copies 8I HIGH COURT DATED:0610812025 COMMON ORDER l.A.No.1 OF 2025 IN/AND CRLP.No.12489 of 2011 i 0 rll itit .) ':.. ,. ALLOWING THE I.A. AND DISMISSING THE CRL.PETITION g {