The High Court · 2025

Petition under Section 528 of BNSS 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 quash the proceedings in Cr. 4112025, dated 09. 09.2025 on the file of Honble Court of Judicial Magistrate of First Class At Yellandu U/s. 318 (4), 338, 340 (1) 340 (2) of BNS l.A. NO: 1 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 of all further proceedings Cr. 4112025, dated 09. 09. 2025 on the file of Honble Court of Judicial Magistrate of First Class At Yellandu U/s. 318 (4), 338. 340 (1) 340 (2) of BNS. lncluding the Arrest of the Petitioners till the disposal of the quash petition This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri PILLIX LAW FIRM ,Advocate for the Petitioner and Sri. Jithender Rao Veeramalla the Addl. Public Prosecutor (TG/AP) on behalf of the Respondent No. and of Sri Advocate for the Respondent No. The Court made the following: ORDER I { tTHE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE TTRUMALA DEVI EADA 1 ORDER: This Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioners - accused Nos.1 to 7 seeking to quash the proceedings in Crime No. No.41 of 2025 on the file of P.S. Bodu, B. Kothagudem District, registered for the offences under Sections 318(4), 338, 340(1), 340(2) of The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short "BNS, 2023"1.

2. Heard the submissions of Sri Md. Nawaz Hyder Ali, learned counsel representing Ms. Pillix Law Firm, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Jithender Rao Veeramatla, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent No.1 - State.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submi&d that the matter is purely of civil nature. He further submitted that the allegation that the petitioners have created stamp papers on fictitious names and got from ancestral property registered in name of the third parties is utterly false, and that even if any such dispute arose, then the de-facto complainant could have filed a Civil case, but has resorted to launching the criminal proceedings with a malafide ,J Ifl ,fl 2 ETD,J Crlp.No.l2679_2025 intention. He therefore, prayed to quash the proceedings against the petitioner. 4- The learned Additionar pubtic prosecutor has submitted that the case of the de-facto comprainant is that their famity succeeded to ancestral property , but without their knowtedge, the petitioners have created stamp papers on fictitious narnes showing that the said land was sord to the third parties from some other peopte. Thus, the creation of documents and using the forged and fabricated documents are of criminar in nature. Therefore, the de-facto complainant has instituted a compraint and the investigation is yet to be completed.

5. The contention of the petitioner counser is that the ingredients of section 338 of the BNS does not get attracted, heilce, prayed to issue directions to the porice to invoke the proceedings under Section 35(3) of the BNSS.

6. Perused the record.

7. The petitioner counser contends that the dispute is of purery civil in nature, creating fake documents attains criminarity and thus, whenever there is an erement of criminarity, the criminar proceedings ./ 3 ETD,J Crlp.No.l2679_2025 are maintainable even though the dispute is of civil nature as it was held in ln Kathyayini v. Sidharth P.S. Reddf, the Apex Court has held that pendency of civil proceedings on the same subject matter, involving the same parties is no justification to quash the criminal proceedings if a prima facie case exists against the accused persons. \ \ B. The Section 338 of the BNS refers to forgery of valuable sacrament, will etc., in the present case the allegation of the I / complainant is that the petitioners have created Rs.50 stamp papers on which it is shown that one Malothu Nagalaxmi has purchased Ac.10-00 guntas in Sy.Nos.3o3l2l84l16 on 16.03.2015. So also one Bhukya Bhav Singh created Rs.50 duplicate stamp paper showing that he had purchased 15 acres in Sy.No.332l2l$4 dated 16.03.2015. There are several other transactions alleged to have , been made by creating fake stamp papers. Thus the case of the de- facto complainant is that all the petitioners have created such fake stamp papers showing fake sale transaction. ThuS, the allegations do prima-facie point out the offence under Section 338 of the BNS along with the other offences under Sections 318(4), 338, 340(1)' 340(2) under which the FIR is registered. The investigation is still in | 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 712 c 4 IITD,J Crlp.No.12679 2025 progress. Hence, it is not proper to interfere with the said process at this juncture. The petition racks merits and hence, the same is riabre to dismissed. I ln the result, the Criminal petition is dismissed. Miscellaneous apprications pending, if any, shail stand crosed. SD/. K.BHAVANI SWAMY . ASSISTANT REGISTRATI L\J SECTION OFFICER //TRUE COPY// \\ To,

1. The Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Yellandu. Bhadradri kothagudem District. 2. The SHO Bodu Police Station, Bhadradri kothagudem District. 3. One CC to SRl. PILLIX LAW FIRM Advocate [OPUC] 4. One CC to SRl. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR Advocate [OPUfr Two CD Copies \ HIGH COURT I DATED:1411012025 lHE S i4 o R ( 22 arc 6 .. t c () { TClli::O FFtrD , c RLP.No.12679 ot 2025