The 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 the CC No.12 of 2023 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate at Husnabad, Siddipet District (the then Karimnagar District for the Offence Under Section 420,424,468,474,504, 197 lPC, 156 (3) lPC. against the petitione r/accused. No 3. l.A. NO: 1OF 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 stay all further Proceedings in CC.No.12 of 2023, on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate at Husnabad, Siddipet District (the then Karimnagar District for the Offence Under Section 420,424,468,474,504, 197 lPC, 156 (3) IPC against the petitioner/accused. No 3 including appearance of the petitioner/A3, pending disposal of the above Criminal Petition. '--:.i:F"* This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing .he Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the argume rts of Sri T Basavaiah, Advocate for the Petitioner and Sri M Vivekananda Rerc dy, Assistant Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No.1 and nc,re appeared for the Respondent No.2. The Court made the following: ORDER ,-E-rE#" / c l I THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA CRIMINAL PETITION No.1618O OF 2024 ORDER: This cnminal petition is filed by the petitioner-accused No.3 seeking thc Court to quash the proceedings against him in C.C.No. 12 ot 2023 on the file of Judicial Magistrate of First Class aL Husnabad, Siddipet District. The offences alleged ag:Linst tl-re pctitioner are under Sections 42O,424, 468, 474, 5O4, 197 , i 5tr (3) of Indian Penal Code.

2. The facts of the case are that the complainant-2nd respor-rdcnt is the ou'ner of Mahindra 475D 1 Bhoomi Puthra Tl'actor, which was purchased from Panchasheel Enterprises in Karimnagar, by obtaining a loan from I.&,T Finance, Karimnagar. Holvever, the Panchasheel Enterprises and L & T F inance institution failed to provide her with the necessary documents ol the Tractor. Despite repeated requests, the officials kept postponing the matter. On 18.O3.2016, employees from Panchasheel Enterprises and L&T Finance visited the complainant's house, demanding payment of the second installment for the tractor finance and the complainant paid 24 2 instalment of the tractor. They obtained a r<-'cciJrr liorn her for se n'icing and informed her that they would t rr i..c ba<'l< tht: tractor lor servicing. On the ncxt day when sltr u/ent to thc oflice to retricve her tractor, shc was told tlta.t ]] ( pal'ts were unzrvailable and would be ordcred from the m:ri r brtllrch for repair and subsequent delivery. The compiainari i rlleqctl that Pancirasheel Enterprises and L&T Finance collrr l,'cl to create ferlsc vehicle tlocuments and sold the tractor to ollrers u'itl-rout hcr cons(:nt. She further alleged that at tllc tir r,' of finance cloctrment ation, she u,as asked to sign blank pap(" r- :rnd rtlso to provide ernpty cheques. Upon obtaining the i'chilL, registration documents from the RTA authorities, she disco,' r td that thc pl-roto antl iLddress in Aadhar card altached ir RTA lile is correct, but the photograph takcn by RTA zrutlri r ties lot- thc purpose of rr:grstration is differer-rt and the p)rotor. rplr lri:longs to another old aged lady and not of the coml- iir nan(. Thc complainant claims that Panchasheel Enterpris. s .rnd L&T Finance committed forgery and cheating, causin;, lcr a loss of Rs.6,OO,OOO/ -. Hence, requested the police t, ake action against the accused and basing on the santt , tht: police registered thc case against the accused. -ffi.:ryz -4,t ,/ 3

3. Heard Sri T. Basavaiah, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner ancl Sri M.Vivekananda Reddy, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for the 1't respondent-State Even tliough notice is served on the 2"d respondent none appeared on her behalf

4. The contentior-r of learned counsel for the petitioner is that petitioncr is innocent of the allegcd offences and there are no material allcgations against him. The grievance of the 2nd respondent is that her tractor was seized illcgatty which can be chalienged by her in appropriate civiI proceedings and investigation did not establish as to what is the role of this petitioner and the conspiracy in commission of of1'ence. Except omnibus allcgation of receipt of Rs,9OOO/ - nothing was attributed and no evidence was placed by the police to show thert thc said amount r,vas rcceivcd by the petitioner. None of the u,itnesscs stated about the vehicle or about lhe petitioner herein and u.ithout there being any evidence, he is falsely implicated in this case. As such, prayed this Court to quash the proceedings against the petitioner. 4

5. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor urotrlr I sut)mit that thcrc ar,: scrious allegations against this pl t tioncr t hich requires trial. Hcnce, prayed to dismiss this petitr ,:r

6. Considcring the submissions made b5. bc,t r tht counsel and the matcrial on record, there are zrllegatiorr., against this petitioner also. There is morphing of thc photogr-ill,h \uhich wae not Verified bt, A.3 properly and the allegatiurr is that the petrtioner rcccived Rs.9OOO/- as commission an I took onlint: plir>iograph ol an unknov!'n wornen u'ithout Ill krrou'L:dge instcad (,f .2r,,1 rcspondent and put her sign; rr res .rn the concernecl <iocuments, A.3 misguided his ol'llr rrs and got approval of this disputed registration document. 'l it:ireirlier, A. 1 sold thc ti:rctor to Ln,-4 who in turn sold thc sar-L, to I-11'.3 and Lrv.3 got registration of the tractor in his nami. Tltc cxpert opin ion also shou,s that the person who wrotc titc L r:d cnclosed signature markcd S- 1 to S.14 did not vr.ritc tht: , .rd t:nclose d signatures rnarked Q. I to A.6, there are r. rrial rons in signatures. As the expert opinion shows that the -, rs variation in thc signatures and there are serious allegatiorLr, against the petitioner, at this stage, the proceedings against rlrt: pctitioner f,aLEd {c:.'iv / ffi.. -t-t 5 cannot be quashed and the criminal petition is liable to be dismissed.

7. Accordingly, the Criminal petition is dismissed Miscellaneous petitions, pending, il any, shall stand closed. SD/- U.SUDHA ASSISTANT REGISTRAR \ //TRUE COPY// ECTION OFFTCER To,

1. The Judiciat First Class Magistrate at Husnabad, Siddipet District 2 The station House Officer, Husnabad Police Station, Siddipet District 3. Two CCs to the Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad (OUT)

4. One CC to SRI T BASAVAIAH, Advocate [OPUC] 5. Two CD Copies AI) e HIGH COURT DATED:2410712025 ORDER CRLP.No.16180 of 2024 'L ,\ . ) ,). 2 4. i,t:P 2on DS DISMISSING THE CRLP TA