A defendant cannot be implicated in conspiracy or forgery solely based on presence at the scene without specific evidence of involvement in fraudulent acts.

ORDER :

NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA, J.

Petitioner – Accused No.2 in C.C. No. 21 of 2023 (Crime No. 199 of 2014 of Cybercrimes Police Station, Hyderabad) (old C.C.No. 1 of 2016) on the file of the IX Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad at Kukatpally for the offences under Sections 120B, 406, 420, 468, 471, 201 read with Section 101 IPC . and Sections 35 , 66(c)(d), 72 (B), 74 of IT Act states that initially, her name was not arrayed in the FIR (registered based on the complaint of her brother dated 26.09.2014). In the said complaint, the allegation is that Accused No.1 had applied for digital signature with TATA Consultancy Services in the name of the 2nd respondent complainant and obtained his digital signature by playing fraud and forgery and thereafter, filed Form 32 showing the reconstitution of Board of Directors and allotment of shares.

1.1. It is stated, as per charge sheet dated 02.01.2006, all the allegations are directed against Accused No.1 and in order to falsely implicate petitioner herein, it is alleged that she accompanied Accused No.1 to the office of Accused No.3 and except the bald and vague allegation, there is no specific overt act directly involving her in the allegation relating to the act of committing forgery of the signature of L.W.1 on the Application for obtaining digital signature certificate. Other allegation against petitioner is that she had accessed along with Accused No.1 the company e-mail. Except stating that, it is not stated as to how she would together with Accused No.1 opened e-mail.

1.2. It is also stated, petitioner along with Accused No.1 filed Criminal Petition No. 6247 of 2016 for quashing C.C.No. 1 of 2016 and the said Petition was dismissed. Thereafter, in 2019, police filed Crl.M.P.No. 164 of 2019 in C.C.No. 1 of 2016 seeking permission to undertake further investigation in the light of the alleged new evdience. After obtaining permission vide order dated 22.03.2019, a supplementary charge sheet was filed by the police on 17.08.2020. A perusal of the said charge sheet shows that statement of LW5 was again recorded which is nothing but reinvestigation but not further investigation. In view of the supplementary charge sheet filed by the police and consequent discharge of Accused No.4 by the Court, the case against petitioner is liable to be quashed for the reasons that the only allegation against petitioner is that she was present at the time of submitting the Application hard copy as stated above to Accused No.4. Once Accused N.4 is discharged on the ground that she has not violated any rules and guidelines regarding verification of the Application and genuineness of the Application, the role of petitioner does not have any relevance and merely because she is the wife of Accused No.1, she cannot be treated to be a part of alleged conspiracy. It is further stated petitioner and her husband (A1) filed Crl.M.P.No. 678 of 2022 in C.C.No. 21 of 2023 but the said Application was dismissed on the ground that the point or grounds on which accused are sought to be discharged are all questions of fact and law to be considered only during the trial and they can agitate all those grounds in the final hearing of the case after trial is concluded. In those circumstances, petitioner prays this Court to quash C.C.No. 21 of 2023.

2. Heard Sri Ch. Shravani, learned counsel for petitioner as well as learned Public Prosecutor on behalf of respondents.

3. It is borne out by record that earlier petitioner and he