THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI CRIMINAL PETITION NOs.16136, 16170 and 16171 of 2024

COMMON ORDER

Criminal Petition No.16136 of 2024 has been filed assailing the order dated 02.12.2024 in Crl.M.P.No.118 of 2024 whereby the prayer for issuance of summons to the present Chief/Central Public Information Officer, Indian Security Press, Nashik Road, Maharashtra- 422101 to give evidence on behalf of the prosecution and to produce documents in respect of information provided under RTI Act vide its letter No.1363/RTI-274 dated 29.04.2011 along with its annexures i.e. letter dated 21.11.2009 and invoice copy before the Court, has been dismissed.

2. Criminal Petition No.16170 of 2024 has been filed aggrieved by the dismissal order dated 02.12.2024 in Crl.M.P.No.117 of 2024 for issuance of summons to the present Deputy Inspector General, Registration and Stamps, Hyderabad and to direct him to give evidence as prosecution witness and to produce the entire records in respect of the report issued Memo No.RTI/1399/2024 dated 21.06.2014 along with its enclosures.

3. Criminal Petition No.16171 of 2024 has been filed challenging the dismissal order dated 02.12.2024 in Crl.M.P.No.53 of 2024 the petition filed under Section 311 of CrPC to recall PWs.1, 3, 4 and 5 for the purpose of further chief examination and marking the left out documents filed in the case.

4. As the above miscellaneous petitions were filed in C.C.No.223 of 2011 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Tandur, Vikarabad District and as the reliefs prayed for are intertwined, these petitions were heard together and are being determined in this common order.

5. I have heard Ms.K.Annapurna Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr.Jithender Rao Veeramalla, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent No.1.

6. In spite of due service the respondent No.2/accused chose to remain silent.

7. The relevant facts are that the petitioner/complainant has filed police report alleging that the respondent No.2/accused created a forged agreement of sale by manipulating non judicial stamp paper and his signature to knock away the property admeasuring Ac.0.28 guntas in Sy.No.10/E and Ac.0.29 guntas in Sy.No.10/EE situated at Saipur village of Tandur mandal, Ranga Reddy District thereby to cause wrongful loss to the petitioner. Basing on the report Crime No.226 of 2008 was registered and after due investigation charge sheet was laid and Calendar Case vide CC No.223 of 2011 has been registered for the offences under Sections 420, 468 and 471 of IPC.

8. Learned counsel for the petitioner/de facto complainant would submit that the respondent No.2/accused had created an agreement of sale/Ex.P-5 dated 11.09.2006 by manipulating a non judicial stamp paper bearing No.H 375588 and forged his signature on it. Further to make out falsity of the document the petitioner/de facto complainant pursued the RTI proceedings at Nashik Security Printing Press/Ex.P-2 and letter from Deputy Inspector General of Registrations and Stamps, Hyderabad/Ex.P-3. The responses elicited that by the Serial number the stamp paper was printed on 11.03.2008 and came into market on 21.05.2008. This fact clinches the impossibility of the execution of agreement of sale on that stamp paper in 2006. However during trial the prosecution failed to properly elicit these facts and got marked the documents along with its annexures. Thus recall of examined witnesses and summoning the officials concerned for properly brining the fact on to record and for marking of the documents. Further pleaded that rejection of the petition filed by the trial Court would cause serious prejudice to the prosecution case and it would affect the valuable rights of the de facto complainant. Further pleads that the evidence, recall and examination of witnesses would clarify the facts for effective adjudication. That apart, the respondent No.2/accused would have opportunity of cross examination. As such allowing the peti