The court determined that factual issues regarding vehicle ownership and number plate forgery require trial, and thus proceedings cannot be quashed.

ORDER:

This criminal petition is filed seeking to quash the proceedings in C.C. No.3641 of 2022 against the petitioner- accused No.1 on the file of the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Nampally, Hyderabad, for the offences under Sections 420 , 468 and 471 IPC.

2. Heard Mr.Aashir M Khan, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.Jithender Rao Veeramalla, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondents.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is innocent and that he borrowed the vehicle from his friend and that he is not the owner of the vehicle. He further submitted that the petitioner was caught while riding the vehicle without driving licence and without number place. The learned counsel further submitted that all these offences are penal provisions and that the penalties are to be collected by the concerned authorities and that the petitioner has already paid the said fines and therefore, continuation of the criminal proceedings against the petitioner is not proper and hence, prayed to quash the proceedings against the petitioner. Learned counsel relied upon a decision of the Coordinate Bench of this Court in Crl.P. No.9953 of 2024 stating that in the same set of facts, the proceedings were quashed against the petitioner therein.

4. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor has submitted that in the present case, the petitioner has resorted to using a wrong number plate and that the investigation has revealed that the number plate has been changed from TS08EC3321 to TS08ES3321, therefore, it amounts to forgery and usage of forged number plate and that the petitioner has to face the criminal proceedings and prayed to dismiss the petition.

5. Perused the record.

6. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner is not the owner of the vehicle and hence, none of the offences got attracted and that he is no way concerned with the change of number plate and that if there is any change in the number plate, it should be attributed to the owner of the vehicle and not to the petitioner. The petitioner was caught while he was going by triple riding on the said vehicle bearing No.TS08ES3321. On verification, he was found to be driving the vehicle without driving licence. It further came to light that the number plate was changed to TS 08 ES 3321. Whether the petitioner himself has changed the number plate or not, has to be unravelled during the course of trial. What transpired between the owner and the petitioner is not known. Though the learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the order of a coordinate bench of this court in Crl.P. No.9953 of 2024 , in the said case, the petitioner was travelling on a bike without any number plate. Therefore, the sections that were levelled against the petitioner therein were 420 of IPC and 80-A of the Motor Vehicles Act. But, in the present case, since there is allegation of fabricating the number plate, the offences under Sections 468 and 471 IPC are also pointed out against the petitioner herein. Hence, the facts of the decision relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the facts in the present are different. As it is already held above, the alleged act of changing the number needs to be tested during the course of trial. Therefore, the proceedings against the petitioner cannot be quashed. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and since the matter is pending before the trial court, this Court deems it appropriate to dispense with the presence of the petitioner before the trial court and to direct the trial court to dispose of the matter at