THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA CRIMINAL PETITION No.3906 OF 2025

ORDER:

This Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioners seeking to quash the proceedings against them in Crime No.20 of 2025 of INSP Admin (DD) Police Station, Hyderabad, registered for the offences under Sections 467, 468 and 471 read with 34 of I.P.C.

2. Heard Sri G.L. Narasimha Rao, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri Jithender Rao Veeramalla, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent No.1-State and Sri Katika Ravinder Reddy, learned counsel for respondent No.2.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that respondent No.2-de facto complainant himself is a fraudster; that he himself has created one Aadhar Card portraying himself as Vakiti Sudhakar, though his name is Dasari Sudhakar; that he claimed succession over the properties of V. Sudhakar Rao and got mutated the properties in his name; and that he has also effected sales of the properties and received crores of Rupees. He further submitted that respondent No.2 himself has created the litigation and has got foisted a false case against the petitioners herein. He further submitted that, in fact, the deceased V. Sudhakar Rao has executed a Will Deed during his life time by virtue of which the petitioners have succeeded to his properties, but it is alleged by the de facto complainant that the Will Deed is fake, based on the Truth Labs Report. He further submitted that neither the de facto complainant nor the police can conclude the said document to be a fake one basing on the photocopy of the document that is sent to the Truth Labs. He further submitted that the petitioners have lodged a complaint earlier and as a counter blast, the present case has been filed against the petitioners herein. He further submitted that since the matter is of civil in nature as to the succession of the properties, initiation of criminal proceedings is not just and proper. He, therefore, prayed to quash the proceedings in the present crime against the petitioners herein.

4. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that the said V. Sudhakar Rao died issueless and the de facto complainant herein is the son of the brother of the deceased V. Sudhakar Rao, while the petitioners are the sisters of the wife of the deceased and their children. Thus, there are property disputes between the parties. He further submitted that the prosecution could make out during the course of investigation that the petitioners herein have created a fake Will Deed. Forging a document attracts criminality and when once there is criminality in a case, initiation of criminal proceedings is very much just and proper as per the law laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court in Kathyayini v. Sidharth P.S. Reddy, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 172. He therefore prayed to dismiss the Criminal Petition.

5. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 submitted that a civil suit is filed by the daughter of petitioner No.2 i.e., Barla Shalini. In the said suit, it is stated that she is the adopted daughter of Sri V. Sudhakar Rao and that the said V. Sudhakar Rao died intestate leaving the plaintiff as Class-IV legal heir. Now, in this case, the petitioners claim that they have Will Deed in their favour and that the properties belong to them. Thus, they contradict their own submissions. When the said V. Sudhakar Rao has died intestate, that itself would indicate that the alleged Will Deed is a forged one. Hence, there is no truth in the submissions of the petitioners and that the de facto complainant is the successor of the deceased V. Sudhakar Rao. He further submitted that the said B. Shalini filed W.P.No.17168 of 2022 before this Court seeking not to mutate the names of respondent Nos.7 to 13

therein in the place of late V. Sudhakar in the revenue records including issuance of pattadar passbook and title deeds in their favour and this Court vide interim order, dated 06.04.2022, granted status quo. Subsequently, during pendency of the proceedings, t