Back
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA
N. Rama Devi – Appellant
Versus
State of Telangana, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor – Respondent
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 al
A defendant cannot be implicated in conspiracy or forgery solely based on presence at the scene without specific evidence of involvement in fraudulent acts.
The court held that an FIR must disclose an offence for proceedings to continue, and allegations, if taken as true, warranted further investigation and trial.
The court affirmed that criminal liability for offenses such as forgery and impersonation may arise from corporate disputes, and ongoing civil proceedings do not negate the applicability of criminal ....
The court maintained that an FIR must not be quashed at an initial stage unless no prima facie case is established, even if the allegations suggest civil nature.
The need for prima facie evidence and the expediency in the interests of justice before initiating proceedings under Section 340 CrPC.
The court affirmed that a charge-sheet can only be quashed if there is no prima facie case against the accused, emphasizing the need for sufficient evidence to proceed.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
