THE HONOURABLE SMT.JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA

ORDER:

This Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioner-accused seeking to quash the proceedings in Crime No.1542 of 2025 on the file of Narsingi Police Station, Cyberabad, registered for the offences under Sections 318(4), 338, 340(2) of BNS.

2. Heard Mr. Syed Waheed Ali, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Jithender Rao Veeramalla, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent No.1-State.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner never cheated the de facto complainant and has not forged any document as alleged by her. He further submitted that there is a civil dispute pending between both the parties and that the present case is falsely filed just to settle the scores on civil side and that initially, the petitioner lodged a complaint, which was ignored by the police, but they have acted upon the complaint lodged by the de facto complainant. He further submitted that the petitioner has approached the High Court on the earlier occasion vide W.P. No.23651 of 2025, wherein the High Court has observed that the dispute is of civil nature and that the respondent No.3 therein was directed to serve a copy of the FIR to the petitioner to enable her to take appropriate steps and also directed the respondent No.3 not to make any attempt to settle the issues between the petitioner and the respondent No.4 therein, which are civil in nature. Inspite of the said orders, the present case is registered against the petitioner which is not just and proper. He, therefore, prayed to quash the proceedings against the petitioner.

4. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor has submitted that the petitioner is a vendee in an agreement of sale which is alleged to be a forged document and that the vendor therein has never executed such document. He further submitted that the de facto complainant is a resident of USA and owns certain plots as her father purchased the same and that when she returned to India, she learnt that the petitioner herein is trying to encroach her plots and has also filed complaint against her in Narsingi police station with fake and forged documents and on learning the same, the de facto complainant has lodged this complaint. He, therefore, prayed to dismiss the petition.

5. Perused the record.

6. The contents of the complaint point out specific allegations against the petitioner that she is trying to encroach the open plot of the de facto complainant with fabricated documents. The investigation is still in progress. The truth is yet to be unraveled.

7. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that when there are civil remedies available, criminal proceedings cannot be launched and relied upon the decision in Shiela Sebastian v. R.Jawaharaj¹, wherein it was held that Section 464 IPC makes it clear only the one who makes a false document can be held liable under the aforesaid provision. But, in the said case, the prosecution could not succeed to prove the offence of forgery by adducing cogent and reliable evidence. By holding the same, the High Court has acquitted the accused by setting aside the concurrent findings of conviction by the courts below. The said orders of acquittal were upheld by the Supreme Court. But, the present case is still in the stage of investigation and the truth or otherwise in the allegations is yet to be culled out. Hence, the above said case law cannot be applied to the case on hand. Therefore, it is not a fit case to quash the proceedings at this stage and the same is liable to be dismissed.

AIR 2018 Supreme Court 2434

8. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is dismissed.

Miscellaneous Petitions, if any pending, shall stand closed.

____________________________ JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA November 10, 2025 KTL