The High Court · 2025

1. The State of Telanganalfrep. by its Public Prosecutor High Court of Telangana at Hyderabad. ;i 2. MadhusudanRao, S/o.Sharaba 2, Flat No.403, Ash.ish Orchid, ya, Age 54, Occ. Business, Rlo 3-5-170111811' Narayanaguda, Hyderabad ...RESPONDENT/DEFACTO.COMPLAINANT 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 CC.No. 9582 of 2021 on the file of Xll ACMM Hyderabad against the petitioner iAccused -'1 in the interest of justice. l.A. NO: 1OF 2025 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 grant STAY of all further proceedings including personal apearance of the Petitioner/Accused in CC No. 9582 of 2021on the file of Xll Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Hyderabad. in respect of the petitioner, during the pendency of the present Quash petition in the interest of justice ; I I This Petition coming on for hearing,upon perusin,; the Memorandum of Grounds of criminal Petition and upon hearing the arg r, r rents of Sri p RANA KAMALASAN ,Advocate for the Petitioner and Sri lVlr V Ji l ender Rao Additional Public Proseculor on behalf of the Respondent No1. anJ none appear for the Respondent N02. The Court made the following: ORDER THE HON'BLE SMT.JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA - CRIMINAL PETITION No.1't061 of 2025 ORDER:- 1. This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023 seeking to quash the proceedings against the petitioner/accused in C.C.No.9582 of 2021 , on the file of the learned XllAdditional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 465,467,468 & 471 of lndian Penal Code, 1860 (for short'lPC').

2. Heard Sri P. Rana Kamalasan, learned counsel for the petitioner/accused as well as Sri Jitender Rao Veeramalla, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for .the respondent No.'1-State.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the present case is filed as a counter blast with an enormous delay and that the alleged date of offence is 26.09.2016 while the complaint is lodged on 12.02.2021 and that after about 5 years from the date of alleged offence, the present complaint is lodged with an ulterior motive just to harass the petitioner. He further submitted that the investigation of Police is also done at the behest of the defacto complainant and that the Agreement- of- Sale was sent to Forensic Science Laboratory l, i I i I I t I 2 ar o.J crrP No 1161 .r 2025 and they have also obtained expert opinion. He ar lued that without the original Agreement- of- sale, how the documerr could be sent to Forensic Science Laboratory and how the opiniorr can be obtained remains a question. He further argued that in the o rarge sheet, they deleted the name of the defacto complainant's sor . The allegation that the stamp and seal are stolen by the accused r utterly false and with the same set of allegations, earlier an FIR war filed in the year

2020. He further submitted that there are civil suits rending between both the parties and that he too lodged the conrl ,laint, but police have not registered any FIR based on his comp aint in the year

2016. Therefore, being unsuccessful on civil s; le, the defacto complainant has resorted to the criminal proceedinc s just to counter blast his case. He therefore prayed to quash he proceedings against the petitioner.

4. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor hzr: submitted that the allegations of forgery are made out durinSl the course of investigation. He further pointed out that the stat, :ment of stamp vendor by name K.Kalpana was also recorrl:d during the investigation and that she stated that she has sold o rt stamp papers worth Rs.100 on 05.01.2013 vide BB029S94 to Sr Rajinder Kaur S/o. Kanwal Jit Singh and entered the sale in ti : register vide 3 EIO,J Sl.No.BB029594 and deposited in the register of Sub Registrar I Office. He further submitted that the said stamp vendor has also stated that the alleged stamp paper on which the agreement of sale t is entered i.e., 88029594 dated 28.01 .2013 is not issued by her and that it is a created document. He further submitted that the stamp paper on which the alleged agreement of sale is entered reflects the name of Anjaiah as stamp vendor. Therefore, the investigation clearly point out the allegations against the petitioner and hence prayed to dismiss the petition.

5. Perused the record. The truth in the allegations and the veracity of the witnesses, including the stamp vendor can be decided during the course of trial. Further, the documentary evidence also need to be appreciated by the Trial Court. Further, C.C.No.9582 of 2021 is pending for trial before the Trial Court.

6. Hence, the Criminal Petition is disposed of directing the learned Trial Court to dispose of C.C.No.9582 of 2021 at the earliest. However, the presence of the petitioner/accused is dispensed with before the Trial Court provided that the petitioner is represented through an Advocate on every date of hearing and that he shall be present before the Trial Court whenever he is specifically required during the course of trial. 4 ETO.J C.lPNo I1061 o12025 t .',1. \ ]

7. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall s;l rnd closed S;I /. L. LAKSHMI BABU )EPUTY REGISTRAR \ To, //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFTCER 1 The Xll Additional Chief Metropolitan Magrstral< at Nampally Hyderabad.

2. The Station House Officer, Police Station WCO Tearn- CCS,DD, Hyderabad 3. One CC to SRl. P RANA KAMALASAN Advocate IOP- C] 4. Two CC to SRl. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR Advocate [Ct T] 5. Two CD Copies a AG/PSL HIGH COURT DATED:1 110912025 I t,t ll: iA r ( 3 zz,ttr 2o2E v f,-: * o C\ir ORDER CRLP.No.11061 of 2025 CRLP IS DISPOSED OF 0 I