THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI Criminal Petition No.9579 of 2025

ORDER

This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘the BNSS’) challenging the order dated 10.06.2025 passed in Criminal Revision Petition No.162 of 2024 on the file of the II Additional Sessions Judge, Hyderabad whereby the order dated 22.07.2024 passed in Crl.M.P.No.2613 of 2024 in C.C.No.1823 of 2016 by the IV Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hyderabad has been confirmed.

2. I have heard Mr. G.Jithender Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.Jithender Rao Veeramalla, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, representing the respondent No.1-State.

3. The relevant facts of the case as per the petitioner are that the case arises from a private complaint filed by Respondent No. 2 against the petitioner and others for alleged offences under Sections 418, 420, 465, 468, 471 read with Section 34 and Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, ‘the IPC’).

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the courts below failed to duly consider the petitioner’s categorical denial of the Photo copy of the disputed document, which was allegedly forged by respondent No. 2. It was contended that the petitioner had expressly raised objections regarding the authenticity and admissibility of the said Photo copy, but these objections were overlooked by the lower courts. Counsel further argued that the document, purportedly introduced as secondary evidence under Section 65 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, did not satisfy the statutory conditions required for its admissibility. No prima facie case was made out to accept the document as valid secondary evidence. It was asserted that the document had been fabricated, and the signatures of material witnesses on the original had been deliberately suppressed, with the intent to mislead the court and obstruct the execution of a genuine sale deed. It was also alleged that respondent No. 2 has misused the judicial process by filing false and malicious claims based on fabricated evidence, with the intent to harass and exert undue pressure on the petitioner. The courts below, it was submitted, failed to appreciate the mala fides underlying the respondent’s conduct and erroneously gave credence to an inadmissible Photo copy. Accordingly, the petitioner prayed for judicial intervention to prevent the abuse of process and to set aside the impugned orders.

5. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor, on the other hand, supported the findings of the lower courts and prayed for dismissal of the present petition.

6. I have perused the materials on record and considered the submissions of the learned counsel.

7. From the material on record, it is evident that respondent No. 2 has alleged that the agreement of sale dated 27.01.2013 is merely a photocopy, which was originally provided by the petitioner. Subsequently, respondent No. 1 initiated a suit for specific performance, allegedly relying on a tampered version of the said agreement. At the time of the original execution of the document, only one witness was present; however, the version of the agreement produced by respondent No. 1 bears the signatures of additional witnesses, namely, witnesses Nos. 2 to 4.

8. In this context, the photocopy obtained immediately after the execution of the agreement becomes crucial to demonstrate the interpolations and material alterations allegedly made by respondent No. 1. On that basis, respondent No. 2 sought permission to adduce secondary evidence by producing the photocopy of the agreement of sale. Both the trial court and the revisional court examined the pleadings and correctly noted that the document in question is a photocopy. Under Section 65 of the Indian Evidence Act, secondary evidence may be permitted when the original document is in the possession of another party, in this case, admittedly, the petitioner. Therefore, the courts below rightly found it appropria