THE HON’BLE SMT.JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA

ORDER:

This Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioners-accused Nos. 3 & 4 seeking to quash the proceedings in CC No.2019 of 2025 on the file of X Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Ranga Reddy District at Kukatpally, registered for the offences under Sections 316(2), 318(4), 336(2), 338, 336(3), 340 (2) read with 62 read with 3(5) of BNS.

2. Heard Sri A. Raghuram, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Jithender Rao Veeramalla, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent No.1-State.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the petitioners have not forged any document as alleged by the respondent No.2-de facto complainant and that the present complaint is lodged with all false allegations. He further submitted that there are civil proceedings pending between the Firm M/s. Vision Resorts, represented by L. Purushotham Naidu-accused No.1 (father of the petitioners herein) in the present case and the respondent No.2 herein and temporary injunction was granted in favour of the firm against which an appeal is preferred and the same is pending before the appellate court. Thus, to settle the scores on civil side, the present complaint is lodged against the petitioners and other accused. He further submitted that the petitioners were not there at the scene of offence and that they have not forged any document. Hence, he prayed to quash the proceedings against the petitioners.

4. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor has submitted that the petitioners are the sons of accused No.1 and that all the accused acted in collusion and have forged fake partnership deed. Thus, the Investigating Agency could collect the FSL report also in this regard and also examined and recorded the statements of eye witnesses.

He, therefore, prayed to dismiss the petition.

5. Perused the record.

6. The allegations in the complaint point out that the petitioners along with other accused have forged the thumb impressions and signatures of the respondent No.2-de facto complainant for executing a partnership deed to be used for their wrongful gain and cause wrongful loss to the de facto complainant. The recitals of the charge sheet point that the prosecution could collect the FSL report. The case of the prosecution is that the de facto complainant was not in India as on the date of execution of the alleged document i.e. on 17.08.2024. It is further alleged that accused No.1 has CCTV footage in his office, but he has not produced the evidence to show that LW1 is in India on 17.08.2024. Thus, the prima facie case points out alleged offences against the petitioners herein. The FSL report is also collected by the prosecution. The veracity of the witnesses, and the truth or otherwise in the allegations and the expert opinion need to be tested during the course of trial. Therefore, it is not a fit case to quash the proceedings against the petitioners at this stage. Hence, it is deemed appropriate to dispose of the petition by dispensing with the attendance of the petitioners before the trial court.

7. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is disposed of dispensing with the attendance of the petitioners before the trial court, provided they are represented by a counsel on every date of hearing and they shall appear before the trial court as and when their presence is required during the course of trial.

Miscellaneous Petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed.

____________________________ JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA November 25, 2025 KTL