The High Court · 2025

High Court for the State of Telangana Hyderabad.

2. P Ganapathi, S/o. Not known to petitioner, Age. 40 years, Occ. City Planner, R/o. Kukatpally Zonal Office, Kukatpally, Medchal Malkajgiri District. ...RESPONDENTS/COIiPLAI NANT 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 FlR. No. FlR. No. 128212Q2501.10.2025 on the file of P.S. Kukatpally, for the offence U/Sec. 338, 336(3), 340(2), 318(4), 61(2) BNS. 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 of all further proceedings in FlR. No. 128212025 dated. 01.10.2025 on the file of P.S. Kukatpally, for the offence U/Sec. 338, 336(3), 340(2), 318(4), 61(2) BNS pending dispoqal of the above criminal petition This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri G Venkat Ratnam Goud, Advocate for the Petitioner and Sri. Jithender Rao Veerramalla, Additional Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No. '1.None appeared for Respondent No.2 The court made the following: ORDER THE HON'BLE SMT.JUSTICE TIRUMALA DE\ I EADA CRIMI NAL PETITION No.l4020 of 20, ri ORDER: This Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioners-, rccused Nos.1 and 2 seeking to quash the proceedings in FIR No.1l82 of 2025on the file Kukatpally Police Station, Cyberabad, for the , rffences under Sections 338, 336(3), 340(21,318(4), 61(2) of BNS.

2. Heard Mr G. Venkat Ratnam Goud, learned ,ounsel for the petitioners and Sri Jithender Rao Veeramalla, lear red Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent No.1-State.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners has ;ubmitted that petitioners have not committed any forgery and that re ingredients of Section 338 of BNS does not attract against the pt titioners, even according to the contents of the complaint. He further submitted that the petitioners are alleged to have forged the authori;l rtion letter and the authorization letter of the City Planner cannot tr, ' held to be a valuable security and in such case the offence under iection 338 of BNS does not get attracted and that itself shows tlr I falsity in the allegations. He, therefore, prayed to quash the proc: :dings against the petitioners. 2 E1D.J Al?- No.1.O& ot Zo2s

4. Learned Additional public prosecutor has submitted that the property was mortgaged with GHMC and the said mortgage is a valuable security and to release the valuable security, a release deed was executed based on a forged authorization letter. He fu(her submitted that the said act falls within the purview of Section 338 of BNS and hence, prayed to dismiss the petition.

5. Perused the record.

6. The contents of the complaint point out that the accused have fabricated the authorization letter addressed to the SRO, Kukatpally by forging the signatures of the City planner and the Assistant city planner of Kukatpally Zone. lt is further made out that the Assistant city planner has inspected the site of the accused and observed that the building was constructed without maintaining the mandatory selbacks and thus, a short fall letter was addressed to the applicant. But, the appricants i.e. the accused herein have not submifted any representation for release of the mortgaged area and without submitting the same, the reconveyance/release deed vide No.7396 of 2O2i was executed on27.}9.2}llwithout any intimation to their office, which was subsequenfly learnt by the authorities that onellohd. Naseer, their office subordinate in Town planning Section has attended the SRO Office, Kukatpally and executed the ) EfD'J crl.P. No.ltllt2o 0t 2oE reconveyance deed. ln pursuance of which' occupil rcy certificate was also released. Thus, on enquiry, they came to :now that the authorization letter and the release deed were foun<t to be forged' Thus, the allegations point out the alleged offencr: ; against the petitioners herein. The learned counsel for the 'etitioner has contended that the ingredients in the complaint do rot attract the offence under Section 338 of BNS. For the sake of reference, \ I Section 338 of BNS is extracted hereunder: "section 338 - Forgery ofvaluable seeurity, will ' tc' 338. Whoever forges a document which purports o be a valuable security or a will, or an authority to adopt. son, or which ourports to qive authoritv to anv oerson lo- nake or transfer anv valuable securitv, or to receive the I rincipal, interest or dividends thereon, or to receive or d{' ver any money, movable property, or valuable securit]', or any document purporting to be an acquaintance (rl receipt acknowledging the payment of money, or an acqua r :ance or receipt for the delivery of any movable property o' raluable security, shall be punished with imprisonment for lii , or with imprisonment of either description for a term wl- ch may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.

7. ln the present case, the authorization letter i ; alleged to be forged which gave an authority to release the vlr rable security (mortgage deed). Thus, the petitioners are facing seri rus allegations of releasae of a valuable security based on a fall' ' authorization i' i l i 4 cn P. o.uozo offi a.: r) letter. Henc e the prima facrb case is made out against the petitioners and therefore, the proceedings cannot be quashed against them. The petition lacks merit and the same is ;;: dismissed.

8. Miscellaneous petitions, ln the result, the criminal petition ts dismissed. if any pending, shall stand closed. " "'' t!3,8?f,1'Hrbf,f HiH _ _.-," I //TRUE COPY// CTION OFFICER To, ',. The Mag 2. The 3. Two Hvd 4. One 5. Two PM/PSL Xll Additionat Junior Civil Judge cum Xll Additional Mekopolitan istrate Medchal Malkajgiri at Prashanth Nagar, Kukatpal ly Station House Officer, Kukat pally Police Station, Cyberabad CCs to Pqbtic Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana at erabad [OUT] CC to Sri G Venkat Ratnam Goud, Advocate [OPUC] CD Copies HIGH COURT DATED:1311112025 ORDER CRLP.No.1 4020 ot 2025 _ -.----= a:.:-::::. 'i -iH!: r '4' IgttC2m ,2, '..i:.-;;;,;--_ f.( I:)l .:/ DISMISSING THE CRIMINAL PETITION. q €