High Court · 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 Quash/ set aside the order dated 30/10/2024 in Crl.R P. No. 61 of 2016 passed by the Principal Sessions Judge at Karimnagar in Crl.MP. No. 1339/2015 in Crime No. 17112013 of PS Choppadandi. This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum ot Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon heartng the arguments of Sri R LAXMINARASIMHA RAO, Advocate for the Petitioner and SRI E GANESH, the Assistant Public Prosecutor for the Respondent No.1 and of Sri S SRINIVASA SHARMA, Advocate for the Respondent Nos. 2 to 6 The Court made the following: ORDER THE HON'BLE SMT.JUSTICE K. SU.'ANA CRIMINAL PETITION No.16435 of 21O24 ORDER This Crirninal Petition is frled under Seclior, 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Salhita, 2023 (for sho:rt, the BNSS') by the petitioner I de-facto complainant to set aside the order dated 3O.1O.2O24 passed in Crl.R.P. No. 61 of 2076 in Crl.M.P. No. 1339 of 2O15 in Crime No. l7l of 2OL3 by the Principal Sessions Judge, Karimnagar.

2. The brief facts of the case are that according to the petitioner / de-facto complainant, he is the owner ar:d possessor of the schedule property i.e., House bearing No. i-575 (old), New D.No.27311-2, Choppadandi village which he acquire(l by virtue of will deed, gift setllcment deed and also through successirtn after expiry of his father name ly late Nandala Pochalu. It is star,ed that since the petitioner wcnt to Maharashtra State for eking out his livelihood, the accused persons with a mala fide intention created forged and fabricated grft sottlement deed bearing No. 194l of l')97 and tried to induce the third parties by dismantling the existing structure in the schedule properly. Alter knowing about the same, t}e petitioner hled a suit urde O.S. No.l58 of 2Ol2 pending on t}re file of lie nior Civil Judge, Karimnagar and obtained interim injunction in his favour. Since the 2 SKS,J CtLP.No. 16435 of 2024 accuseal persons threatened the petitioner with dire consequences, he frled a complaint under Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 197 3 (for short, 'the Cr.P.C. J against tlee accused for the offences punishable under Sections 419,42O,421, 423, 465, 466 and 468 read with 109 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, 'the IPC') and the said complaint was referred to Choppadandi Police and the Choppadandi Police registered a case in Crime No. 171 of 2O13 for the alteged offences and after completion of the investigation, filed a hnal report stating that the matter is of civil nature. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed a protest petition uide Crl.M.P.No. 1339 of 2O15 under Section l9O read with 20O of the Cr.P.C., seeking the trial Court to take cognizance of the offences against the accused and permit the petitioner to lead his evidence to prove the accusation against the accused. However, the trial Court dismissed the same stating that the matter will be decided by the Civil Court in O S' No.158 of 2012. Against the said order dated 14.O9.2016, the petitioner hled Crl.R.P. No. 61 of 2O16 which was dismissed by the revisional Court confrrming the said order dated 14.09.2016 passed by the trial Court. Aggrieved by the same, the Criminal Petition is [rled.

3. Heard Sri R.Laxminarasimha Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri E.Ganesh, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for i I I I I i 3 sr6,J CrLP.No. 16435 of 2O2a respondent No. I-State as well as Sri S.Srinivasrr Sharma, Iearned counsel for respondent Nos.2 to 4. perused the material available on record.

4. Learned counsel for the petitio ner firstlg s.-tl]mitted t]rat after the death of the petitioner,s father and taking advantage of the petitioner's a bsence in the village, respondent Nor;. j2 to 6 fabricated the gift deed document bearing No.l94l of lgltl. by forging the signature of the petitioner and his father in respe:t of the schedule property and sold the same to respondent No.5 urde sale deed document bearir-rg No.242O of 2012. He seandlg strbmitted that in O.S.No.158 of 2012, the petitioner got interim order restraining the respondents therein from inferring with his possession in respect of tlre schedule property. ne thirdly submitted that th: revisionar court ought to havc considered that the protest petiLion uide Crl.M.P. No. l33q of 2O 15 hled by the petitioner uras erroneously dismissed by thc trial Court without appreciating the evidence on record. He fourthly submitted that the petitioner filed c:riminal petition No.83l8 of 2023 againsr the dismissal of Crl.M.p. Irlo. g1 of 2022 which is filed bv the peritioner under Section 91 ,tf the Cr.p.C. to direct the Sub-Registrar to produce office record c,f gift settlement deed document bearing No.1941 of r99z and registered sale deed document bearing No.4 124 of l9Z4 for the purpose of sending them to 7 L s.-., r C P.No. 16a3s of !$: expert opinion for compai-ison of the disputed signature. He lastlg submitted that this Court uide order dated 20.06.2024 disposed of the Crl.P.No.8418 of 2023 directing the trial Court to call for the records from the Sub-Registrar Offrcer, however, the same is not complied and prayed the Court to allow the Criminal Petition. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 to 6

5. submitted that though the petitioner filed Crl.M.P.No.474 of 2024 under Section 39 of the BSA during ttre pendency of Cr1.R.P.No.61 of 20 16, the same was dismissed by the trial Court. He further submitted that Crt.P.No.8318 of 2022 filed by the petitioner against the dismissal of Crl.M.P. No.S1 of 2022, was disposed of by this Court on 10.06.2024 directing the trial Court to call for the records from the Sub Rcgistrar office by frxing the time at earliest. He also submitted that though there are civil disputes between the parties, the petitioner filed the criminal case only to harass respondent Nos.2 to 6 Hence, he prayed the Court to dismiss the Criminal Petition. [n view of the rival submissions made by both the parties, 6. this Court has perused the material evidence available on record lt is thc contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the order dated 20.O6.2O24 passed in Crl.P. No. 8318 of 2022 by tl.is Court was not complied, whereas a perusal of the impugned order dated 5 SI(S,J CrLP.No. 1&35 ol2024 \ \ 3O.1O.2O24 discloses that the revisional Court received thumb impression registers of Vo1.No.83 ot 1974 and Vol.No.l78 of 1997 from the office of Sub Registrar, Karimangar, regarding I egistered sale deed document bearing No.4124 of 1974 and registered lJilt settlement deed document bearing No. 1941 of 1997 in respectof tht: schedule property executed by the petitioner's father and after receiJ)t of the same, the petilioner frled petition uide Crl.M.P.No.474 of 2O2'l :under Section 39 of the BSA for comparison of thumb impressions and signatures by the Forensic Expert. Further, learned counscl for respondent Nos.2 to 6 filed counter stating that the revisional Court has no jurisdiction to entertain such petitions. It is nc teworthy that the revisional Court passed the impugned order 30.1t,.12O24 stating that the petitioner has not taken any steps before the trLal Court to call for the original documents and furthe r, the petitioner {-rled O.S.No.158 of 2012, wherein, the petitioner got interim ordcr restraining the respondents therein from interfering with his posscssion in respect of the schedule property. Pertinentll', the revisional jurisdiction is limited to the extent of deciding legality of the order of t et: trial pourt and since there is no illegality in thc order passed by the trial Court in Crl.M.P.No.1339 of 2015, the Crl.R.P.No.6l of 2Ole 'vas dismissed by the revisional Court. Hence, considering the facts irnd circumstances of the case, this Court is not inclined to interfere wrth the order of the \ \ I I I l 6 CrLP.No. 16435 oi':- 1 .\. trial Court as there is no flaw in ttre impugned order dated 3O. 10.2024 passed by the revisional Court. 7 . Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is dismissed. Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, in this criminal petition shall standclosed. SD/. V.KAVITHA DEPUW REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// ECTION OFFICER To,

1. The Principal Sessions Judge, Karimnagar. 2. One CC to SRI R LAXMINARASIMHA RAO Advocate [OPUCI 3. One CC to SRI S SRINIVASA SHARMA Advocate [OPUCI 4. Two CCs to SRI PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, High Court for the State of Telangana, Hyderabad. [OUT]

5. Two CD Copres GR,/PSL \sr I j i I I I I I I I i HIGH COURT DATED:2910712025 ) ORDER CRLP.No.16435 of 2024 r tttf I l4 t o' t 22' illu M * s \ Patc xED (f, (- z o + DISMISSING THE CRIMINAL PETITION g(e\ 6co \6 ff,w