IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA HYDERABAD
E.V. VENUGOPAL, J.
Mumai Ramesh - Petitioner
Versus
The State of Telangana, rep. by its Public Prosecutor High Court, Hyderabad And Another – Respondents
Criminal Petition No.4752 of 2009
Decided On : 30-09-2024
ORDER :
E.V. VENUGOPAL, J.
1 This criminal petition, under Section 482 Cr.P.C, is filed seeking to quash the proceedings against the petitioner herein in Cr.No.51 of 2009 on the file of P.S Basar, Nizamabad District, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 468 , 420, 196, 197 and 198 of IPC.
2 Heard Sri Surender Rao, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of Sri V.Ramchander Goud, learned counsel for the petitioner; Ms.S.Madhavi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for the first respondent - State and Sri Sumanth Ravuri, learned counsel for the second respondent and perused the record.
3 The genesis for filing of the present criminal petition is that on a complaint lodged by the second respondent herein – Sri A.Chandra Babu, Junior Civil Judge, Bhainsa, Adilabad (as he then was) alleging that the petitioner had produced forged documents and gave false information in the case filed before him i.e. O.P.No.4 of 2006 with reference to his election as Sarpanch of Basar Gram Panchayat and during the course of arguments the same was noticed by him. Consequent upon the said complaint made to the Superintendent of Police, Adilabad District, the present crime was registered against the petitioner for the offences stated supra. The allegation was that the petitioner had placed forged documents to substantiate his claim that his third daughter was born on 29.4.1995 and to authenticate the same, the petitioner placed reliance on the school records where she was joined first and the sterilization certificate issued by the Government Headquarters Hospital, Nizamabad dated 27.6.1995.
4 The factual matrix was that the petitioner herein and one N.Sudershan Rao contested to the post of Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat, Basar scheduled on 10.8.2006. But, at the time of filing of nominations, the said Sudershan Rao filed objections before the Returning Officer alleging that the petitioner was having a third child who was born on 08.8.1998 which was after the cut off date i.e. 30.5.1995 and therefore he is disqualified to contest in the election in terms of S.No.19 (3) of A.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1994. However, the said objections were not considered and the petitioner herein succeeded in the election to the post of Sarpanch, Basar Gram Panchayat with a margin of 1000 votes. Thereafter, the losing candidate Sudershan Rao lodged Election Petition before the Court of Junior Civil Judge, Bhainsa, the second respondent herein, which was numbered as O.P.No.4 of 2006. On contest, the second respondent delivered Order dated 16.6.2009. During the course of trial in the said O.P, the petitioner in the O.P. by name Sudershan Rao filed documentary evidence marked as Exs.P.1 to P.14. So also the petitioner herein who was respondent in the said O.P also filed documents marked as Exs.R.1 to R.10.
5 While delivering the Order in the said O.P. the second respondent herein observed that the petitioner influenced R.W.3 - Dr.S.Rajeshwar Rao who worked in Government Hospital, Mudhole from 01.11.1989 to 31.7.2005 to issue date of birth certificate of his third child, who is not competent authority. So also Ex.R.4 Sterilization certificate on which he is totally depending to prove that his wife underwent sterilization operation on 27.6.1995 was not signed by P.W.3. P.W.5 gave evidence that she did not sign Ex.R.4 and that the signature which Ex.R.4 bears was not that of P.W.5. Therefore, the second respondent found that Ex.R.4 is a forged document.
6 Arriving at such conclusions and findings, the second respondent marked a copy of the Order to the Superintendent of Police, Adilabad to take action against the petitioner herein as per law and against the responsible persons who filed the forged documents and submitted false information to the Court. Basing on the said complaint lodged by the second respondent, Cr.No.51 of 2009 was registered on the file of P.S, Basar, Nizamabad District for the offences punishable under Sections 468 , 420, 196, 197 and 198 I
A valid written complaint is required under Section 195 Cr.P.C. to initiate criminal proceedings for forgery related to evidence presented in court, highlighting procedural safeguards against wrongfu....
Petitioner has not been confined for illegal purpose amounting to commission of offence. As such, the petitioner cannot take advantage of the liberty granted to him by filing the complaint under Sect....
Section 415 of IPC mandates that there should be inducement from hands of accused to victim to part with any property and transaction should be tainted with dishonest intention right from its outset.
Stage of taking of cognizance of the offence and issuing process, and the stage when the charge is to be framed against the accused or alternatively the accused is to be discharged are different stag....
The court clarified that Section 195(1)(b)(ii) of Cr.P.C. limits cognizance of forgery only if it occurs after the document has been submitted in court.
The court confirmed that presenting a forged document constitutes a serious offense warranting prosecution under relevant legal provisions, emphasizing the need for judicial integrity.
The central legal point established in the judgment is that the continuation of criminal proceedings based on allegations of fabricated documents and false evidence must be supported by sufficient ev....
The court ruled that charges under IPC Sections 193 and 471 require a prior written complaint under Section 195 Cr.P.C., highlighting the jurisdictional limits on the Magistrate's authority to frame ....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.