J. Rajeshwar Rao v. The State of Telangana

Petition under Section 528 of BNSS 2023 praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Groundq of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to quash the Calendar Ca$e No. 748 of 2025on the file of the Additional Judicial Magistrate of I Class (Mobile) Court, Medak, pursuant to Charge Sheet filed in FIR No. 59120'19 regi$tered at Yeldurthy Police Station for offences punishable under Sections 420 and 506 of the lndian Penal Code, 1860, and all further proceedings initiated th4reon, presently pending before the Judicial Magistrate of First Class. l.A. NO: 1OF 2025 Petition under Section 528 of BNSS praying that in the cireumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to Stay all the proceedings in Calendar Case No.748 of 2025 on the file of the Additional Judicial Magistrate of I Class (Mobile) Court, Medak, pursuant to Charge Sheet filed in FIR No. 5912019 against the petitioner/Accused No. 4 in Yeldurthy Police Station for offences punishable under Sections 42O and 506 of the lndian. Penal Code, '1860, and all further proceedings initiated thereon. This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Mr D LINGA RAO, Advocate for the Petitioner and Mr. JITHENDER RAO VEERAMALLA, the Additional Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondents (No.1&2) The Court made the following: ORDER IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE I.ION'BLE SMT. JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA CRIMINAL PETITION No.17022 ot 2025 Date:22.01.2026 Between: J. Rajeshwar Rao And State of Telangana, Rep. by the Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana, Hyderabad and another. .. Petitioner/Accused No.4 Respondents ORDER: This Criminal Petition is filed seeking to quash the proceedings against the petitioner-accused No.4 in CC No.748 of 2025 on the file of the Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class (Mobile) Court, Medak. The offence alleged against the petitioner is under Section 420 lPC.

#2. Heard Sri D. Linga Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Jithender Rao Veeramalla, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for respondents. 2 EfD,J Crl.P. No.l7OZ2 of 2O2S !-'i--

#3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner herein is a retired MRO and that the alleged offence has occurred during the period of discharging his official duties, in which case prior sanction is required to initiate proceedings against the public servant and hence, continuation of proceec, ings against the petitioner without prior sanction wourd be an abuse of process of law. Learned counsel has further submitted that the petitioner herein has never committed any such alleged acts of cheating and has never deceived the de facfo complainant in any manner and hence, prayed to quash the proceedings against the petitioner.

#4. Learned Additional public prosecutor has submitted that the prosecution courd colect ampre materiar against the petitioner herein to prove that he acted in collusion with accused No.1 and has made fraudulent entries in the revenue records and prepa6ed a fake pattedar pass book and hence, he prayed to dismiss the petition.

#5. Perused the record.

#6. The petitioner herein is accused No.4 in CC No.748 of 2025. He is stated to be a retired MRO. lt is alleged that accused ruo\ is the owner of an extent of Acs.8.25 gts., in Sy. No.283 and that he sold an extent of Ac.1.23 gts., in Sy. No.2g3le to the de facto J ETD,J Crl.P. No.17022 of 2025 complainanl: and thereafter, he joined hands with the petitioner- accused Nrt.4 and the other accused and got prepared a fake pattedar Jrassbook No.T08200080333 and pahani Nakkal No.TSGGCC73O73725O and sold out the same extent of land in Sy.No.283/r: to LW.4. When the de facto complainant has not received any cheque/amount under Rythu Bandhu Scheme, he got enquired vdth the MRO office, then he has learnt about the fraudulent registration and also not entering the land in his name in the record:s by accused Nos.3 and 4. Thus, there are specific allegations against the petitioner herein pointing out pima facie case for the offe, rce under Section 420 lPC.lt is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that since lhe petitioner is a Government Servant, prior sanction under Section 197 Cr.p.C. is essential to prosecute rim. The relevant provision is extracted hereunder for the sake of ref, arence: "197. Prosecution of Judges and public servants.- (1)When any person who is or was a Judge or Magistrate or a public servant not rem,)vable from his office save by or with the sanction of the Government is accused of any offlnce alleged to have been corrmitted by him while acting or purporting to act in the discharge of his r)fficial duty, no Court shall take cognizance of such offence except with the previous sanction 6 lsave as otheMise provided in the Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act, 2013 ( l of 2014)l- (a) in the case of a person who is employed or, as the case ma), be, was at the time of commission of the alleged offence 4 EfD,J Crl.P. No.17022 of 2025 - \ employed, in connection with the affairs of the Union, of the Centrat Government; (b) in the case of a person who is employed or, as the case may be, was at the time of commission of the alleged offence employed, in connection with the atfairs of a State, of the State Government: Provided that where the alleged offence was committed by a person referred to in clause (b) during the period while a proclamation issued under clause (1) of article 356 of the Constitution was in force in a State, clause (b) will apply as if for the expression .State Government" occurring therein, the expression, Central Government,, were substituted. (2) No Court shall take cognizance of any offence alleged to have been committed by any member of the Armed Forces of the Union while acting or purporting to act in the discharge of his official duty, except with the previous sanction of the Central Government. (3) The State Government may, by notification, direct that the provisions of sub-section (2) shall apply to such class or category of the members of the Forces charged with the maintenance of public order as may be specified therein, wherever they may be serving, and thereupon the provisions of that sub-section will apply as if for the expression "Central Government" occurring therein, the expression 'State Governmenf' were substituted. (3A) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (3), no court shall take cognizance of any offence, alleged to have been committed by any member of the Forces charged with the maintenance of public order in a State while acting or purporting to act in the discharge of his official duty during the period while a proclamation issued under clause (1) of article 356 of the Constitution was in force therein, except with the previous sanction of the Central Government. (38) Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in this Code or any other law, it is hereby declared that any sanction accorded by the State Government or any ognizance taken by a court upon such sanction, during the period commencing on the 2oth day of August, 5 EfO,J Crl.P. No.1?022 of 202:t 1991 and ending with the date immediately preceding the date on which the Code of Criminal procedure (Amendment) Act, 1991 (43 of 1991), receives the assent of the president, with respect to an offence alleged to have been committed during the period while a Proclamation issued under clause (1) of article 356 of the Constitution was in force in the State. shall be invalid and it shall be competent for the C€)ntral Government in such matter to accord sanction and for the court lo take cognizance thereon. (4) Tfe Cenkal Government or the State Government, as the case may t,e, may determine the person by whom, the manner in which, and tfe offence or offences for which, the prosecution of such Judge, Magistrate or public servant is to be conducted, and may specify the Court before which the triat is to be held."

#7. lrr Suneeti Toteja v. State of U.p.l, when a similar question fel for consideration, the Hon, ble Apex Court has observed that: "The learned Magistrate was not right in taking cognizance of the offence against the appellant herein without ther€ being a sanction for prosecution granted by the competent authority. Further, the High Court erred in not considering the fact that the sanction for prosecution was not gran':ed by the competent authority undei Section 197 of the Cr.P C." I

#8. lrr the present case, the record does not disclose that any sanction is obrained from the competent authority to prosecute the petitioner end hence, without any prior sanction under section 197 cr.P.c., cc')ntinuance of proceedings initiated against the petitioner I 2025 SCC Ont-ine sc 433 6 ETD,J Crl.P. No.17022 ol 2025 - would be an abuse of process of law. Therefore, the trial court cannot proceed with the trial unless the sanction is obtained from the concerned competent authority.

#9. Accordingly, the Criminal petition is allowed and the proceedings against the petitioner-accused No.4 in CC No.74g of 2025 on the file of the Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class 'r' (Mobile) Court, Medak, are hereby quashed. '

#10. However, lt is made clear that it does not preclude the competent authority in taking a decision with regard to granting of any safiDtion for prosecuting the petitioner in accordance with law. Therefore, the. prosecuting agency can obtain prior sanction and ' then, can seek appropriate remedies according to law. Miscellaneous Petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. //TRUE COPYII SD/. L VIJAYA LAXMI SlSTANT REGIST ECTION OFFICER To,

#1. The Additional Judiciat First Class Magistrate (Mobile) at Medak. 2. The Station House Officer,, yeldurthy police Station, Medak District, t lyffr?""|:lhe Public Prosecutor, High court for the state of retansana, at

#4. One CC to Mr. D LINGA RAO, Advocate [OpUC] 5. Two CD Copies RC/PSL HIGH COURT DATED: 2210112026 ORDER CRLP.No.',7022 ot 2025 \ ..6 S l.il o 0 6 tiB ztfl[ c) * j' Accordingly, this Criminal Petition is Allowed. g J "h