High Court · 2025

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

2. Smt Parachuri Janaki, Wo.P.Sridhar, Aged about 54 years, Occ Business, R/o. H. No.'l'l -9- 1 20 13 13, Road No. 1 6, Vijayapurai Colony, Kothapet. Hyderabad. ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANTS 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 CC.No.266212O24 on the file of the lV Additional Metropolitan Magistrate-cum-lV Additional Junior Civil Judge at L.B.Nagar, Ranga Reddy District in the interest of justice. l.A. NO: 2 OF 2024 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 grant stay of all further proceedings CC.No.266212024 on the file of the lV Additional Metropolitan Magistrate-cum-lV Additional Junbr Civil Judge at - L.B.Nagar, Ranga Reddy District pending disposal of the above Crl.P in the interest of Justice, This Petition coming on for hearing, uFlon. perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri P NAGENDRA REDDY, Advocate for the Petitioner and the Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No.1 and Sri D. Raghavulu, Counsel for Respondent No.2. The Court made the following: ORDER -!Ft!:!:+--- :r ) THE HONOURABLE SMT WSTICE K. SUJANA CRIMINAL PE-TITIOI{ No.16O15 OF 2o24 ORDER: The present Criminal Petition is liled by the petitioner/A. I 1 praying the court to quash the proceedings against him in C.C.No.2662 of 2024 pending on the file of IV Additional Metropolitan Magistrate-cum-lV Additiona-l Junior Civil Judge at L.B.Nagar, Ranga Reddy District.

2. The facts of the case are that the complainant, Smt. Paruchuri Janaki, reported a complaint on 18.05.2O17, stating that the three individuals, Dasari Jaya Srinivas, Smt. Dasari Sudha Rani, and B. Vivekanand, were running a finance br.rsiness and collecting exorbitant interest on principal amounts from her and other innocent individuals. That in 2012- 2O 13, the complainant borrou,ed {55 lakhs from them and repaid the amount along with t7O takhs worth of diamond bangles and two Necklaces. Despite repayment, the accused failed to return the blank cheques, signed stamp papers, promissory notes, and other documents. As per their agreement, the complainant paid {44 lakhs, t70 lakhs worth of diamonds, and additional interest monthly. ln 2014, the complainant z again borrowed {1 crore from the accused for business purposes, providing blank signed stamp papers, cheques, promissory notes, and her husband's registered GPA as surety. Within a year, the complainant ald her husband repaid {1.72 crores as agreed. However, the accused cancelled the registered GPA but retained the complainant's documents.

3. The accused misused the blank signed cheques and promissory notes, sending legal notices through accused Nos.5 to l3 and 14 with an intention to cheat tJ.e defacto complainant for their illegal gains by forging the signatures and scribed the blank signed pronotes and signed blank cheques. On

26.04.2017, Smt. Dasari Sudha Rani-A.2 aTong with anti-social elements came to the complainant house and threatened with dire consequences. Hence, the complaint was given and basing on the same, police registered the case against the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 4O6, 420' 506 and 120 (b) r/w.Section 34 of Indian Penal code and thereafter Sections 3 and 4 of Telangana Money lrnders Act was added to the existing sections.

4. Heard Sri P.Nagendra Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for F-!1q!r!.:€- . '..,,! 3 respondent No. l-State and Sri D.Raghavulu, learned counsel for respondent No.2.

5. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the defacto complainant availed loan from accused No.2 promising to repay the same together with interest @24o/o p.a., and executed three promissory notes. The petitioner herein is the attestor to the said promissory notes. In discharge of loan amount, the defacto complainant issued a cheque bearing No.013323 for Rs.2O takhs and when it was presented it was dishonored. As such, accused No.2 filed C.C.No.2OO of 2016, wherein the defacto complainant was convicted. Aggrieved by the same, the defacto complainant hled Crl.A. No .4 of 2Ol9 before the Ill-Additional District Judge, Ranga Re<ldy District at L.B.Nagar, and the same is pending. He lurrher contended that the present complaint is filed with a malafide intention to escape from repayment of the loan amount. 'l[-re petitioner herein is only an attestor and scribe o[ the promissory notes and that the defacto complainant herself admitted her signature on the cheque. As such, petitioner has nothing to do with the alleged offences and prayed to quash the proceedrngs pending against her. 4

6. On the other hand, the contention of learned Assistant Public Prosecutor is that the petitioner herein in collusion with A.1 and A.2 harassed the defacto complainant by frling cases against her. The investigation done by the investigating authority shows that A. I to A'3 mis-used the sign'ed blank cheques, signed promissory notes and signed stamP papers and created as per their convenience in favour of A'2 to A'6 and A'7 toA.l8aswitnessesandscribeofthesignedblankcheques' pronotes and stamp papers without the consent of defacto complainant and filed different cases' Therefore' it requires full- fledged trial. As such, requested the Court to dismiss this petition. 7 . Considering the submissions made by both the counsel andthematerialonrecord,theallegationsagainstthis petitioner is that the petitioner in collusion with A'1 to A'3 has alsocreatedfalsedocumentsagainstthedefactocomplainant and filed different cases, whereas' the record shows that the petiLioner herein is a witness in C'C'No'2OO of 2O16' filed against the defacto complainant herein wherein she frled an afhdavit stating that Exs P l to P 3 bears her siBTratures as scribe and witness and that the hgures and words are written by one P.Sridhar, husband o[ the delacto complainant herein 5 and remaining columns on demand promissory notes are hlled and scribed by her. In the cross-examination a suggestion was put to her that she is deposing false at the instance of pw. I therein. Except this there are no other allegations against her and there are no averments to constitute any of the offences alleged against her. Therefore, continualion of proceedings against this petitioner is nothing but abuse of process of law. As such, the criminal petition is liable to be quashed.

8. Accordingly, the Criminal petition is allowed and the proceedings in C.C.No.2662 of 2024 pending on rhe file of IV Additional Metropolitan Magistrate-cum-lV-Additional Junior Civil Judge at L.B.Nagar, Ranga Reddy District, against the petitioner are hereby quashed. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending, sha[[ stand closed. Sd/. P. CH. NAGABHUSHAMBA DEPUTY REGISTRAR /ITRUE COPY// To, SECTION OFFICER '1 . The lv Additionar Metroporitan Magistrate-cum-rv Additionar Junior civir ^ lydg^" at L.B.Nagar, Ranga Reddy Dlstrict 2. The Station House Officer, police Station, Chaitanyapuri, Rachakonda 3 Two CCs to the PUBLIC pR_O_SFgqI9R, High Court rt uva.raola fourl 4 One CC to SRI p NAGENDRA REDDY Ad-vocate tOpU-Cl I 9n. !! !o sf D. Raghavuru, Advocate [opUC] 6. Two CD Copies rpk,glr \t- HIGH COURT DATED:2810312025 ( + J o .J t -1t, E S 14 16: ( \ 27 JIJN 2$6 DATC\1 ri) * t D -- ORDER CRLP.No.16015 of 2024 CRIMINAL PETITION IS ALLOWED f A- 6 6