The High Court · 2025

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

2. Mir Ali Hassan,, S/o Mir Ameer Ali, Aged.56 yrs, Occ. Retd. SBI Employee, R/o H No.8-2-6741 IlHINF-4lSF, Flat No. F4, 2nd Floor, Esskay Banjara Apartments Hyderabad. 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 against the Petitioner/Accused No.2 in C.C.No.6310 of 2022 on the file of Xll Additional Chief Metropolitan tvlagistrate at Nampally, Hyderabad. ...RESPONDENTS 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 the appearance of the Petitioner/Accused No.2 in C.C.No.6310 ot 2022 on the file of Xll Additional Chief tt/letropolitan lvlagistrate at Nampally, Hyderabad, pending disposal of the main Criminal Petition. =-7 This Petition coming on for hearing,upon perusing he Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the e rguments of Sri P VAMSHEEDHAR REDDY ,Advocate for the Petitioner an,l Mr V.Jithender Rao Additional Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent l,l r'1 . and none appear for the Respondent No2 The Court made the following: ORDER I I l. Il i THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA CRIMINAL PETITION No.13916 OF 2025 ORDER: This Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioner-accused No.2 seeking to quash the proceedings against him in C.C.No.6310 of 2022 on the file of learned Xll Additional Chief [\Ietropolitan lVlagistrate, Hyderabad at Nampally. The offence alleged against the petitioner rs under Section 420 read with 34 l.P.C

2. Heard Sri P. Vamsheedhar Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Jithender Rao Veeramalla, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent No. 1-State.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner herein is only a witness to the document filed before the civil Court and that the petitioner has just signed the document as a witness. He further submitted that a witness cannot be arrayed as an accused for no fault of him. ln support of his submissions, he relied upon a decision of the Honourable Apex Court in Md. lbrahim and others v. State of Bihar and anotherl and submitted that in the said case, it was observed that the witness 11 zoos; 8 scc t: I i:' 1 E].D.l ( I rNo. l9l6 01 2025 to a document cannot be prosecuted. He, therefor e, prayed to 2 quash the proceedings rn the present C.C. against fl.r, , petitioner.

4. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor submil ed that the petitioner herein is the son of accused No 1 and i not a third party During the course of investigation, it came: to light that accused No.1 in connivance with accused Nos.2 to 4 have created fake/fabricated undertaking, dated 1 1.10.201 z bv forging the signature of the de facto complainant (LW..l ) arr, I filed a civil suit against the de faclo complainant to gain wrc,r gfully. He, therefore, prayed to dismrss the Criminal petition.

5. Perused the record

6. The allegations in the complaint point out :he offence alleged under Section 420 l.p.C. against the pet,i oner. The recitals of the charge sheet point out that an underrtr rking, dated

11.10.2017, was brought into existence by accus :d No.1 in collusion with accused Nos.2 to 4 by forging the sigr ature of the de facto complainant and using the said document a civil suit was filed against the de facto complainant to gairr wrongfully. Further, Sccused Nos.2 to 4 have signed the said ,i witnesses. Petitioner herein-accused No.2 is none ot )cument as rer than the I I I : I \ 3 ETD.J Crl.P.N*o. I 39 I 6 of 2025 son of accused No.'1 . lt is further mentioned in the charge sheet that the said document was sent to Forensic Science Laboratory for comparison of signature of the de facfo complainant and a report was furnished stating that the signature on the alleged undertaking was forged. The truth in the allegations and the expert opinion on the said document need to be tested during the course of trial

7. ln Md. lbrahim's case (supra), relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner, at paragraph No.14, it was held thus "14. When a sale deed is executed conveying a property claiming ownership thereto, it may be possible for the purchaser under such sale deed, to allege that,the vendor has cheated him by making a false representation of ownership and fraudulently induced him to part with the sale consideration. But in this case the complaint is not by the purchaser. On the other hand, the purchaser is made a co-accused. lt is not the case of the complainant that any of the accused tried to deceive him either by making a false or misleading representation or by any other action or omission, nor is it his case that they offered him any fraudulent or dishonest inducement to deliver any property or to consent to the retention thereof by any person or to intentionally induce him to do or omit to do anything which he would not do or omit if he were not so deceived. Nor did the complainant allege that the first appellant pretended to be the complainant while executing the sale deeds. Therefore, it cannot be said that the first accused by the act of executing sale deeds in favour of the second accused or the second accused by reason of being the purchaser, or the third, fourth and fifth accused, by reason of being the witness, scribe and stamp vendor in regard to the sale deeds, deceived the complainant in any manner. As the ingredients of cheating as stated in section 415 are not found, it cannot 4 E TD.J ( r .\o.l19l6 of 2U25 be said that there was an offence punishabler under sections 417 , 418, 419 or 420 of the Code." The facts of the present case differ from the cited de: sion ln the present case, the de facto complainant is the purcl^; ser and the petitioner being the son of accused No.'l is alleged 1c have aided his mother in creating a fake document. Therefore the above cited decision cannot be applied to the present case. However, it is deemed appropriate to dispense with the atterc ance of the petitioner before the trial Court.

8. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is disposed ,) dispensing with the attendance of the petitioner before thr: trial Court provided he is represented by a counsel before the .r al Court on every date of hearing and shall appear before the trial Court whenever his presence is required during the course c f trial Miscellaneous Petitions pending, if any, shall s:i nd closed SD/- A.JAYASREE ASI; STANTREGISTRAR 4 - ,fPttu csYY t/ SECTION OFFIEER To, Hyderabad.

1. The Xll Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Nampally, 2. The Station House Officer, police Station WCO Team_Vl CCS DD , One CC to SRt. p VAMSHEEDHAR REDDY Advocate t )pUCl Ix1:.33yfEiI"',.rt#?j,Ir?sECUroR Hish courr ro, : ,e state or Hyderabad 3 4 h." Two CD Copies HIGH COURT DATED:0711112025 ORDER CRLP.No.13916 ot 2025 i\ 'ltril ffi -;i' *., ; \.' i.,.\i. CRLP IS DISPOSED OF q ( t) -<t: tzl'l,,s