THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA CRIMINAL PETITION No.13916 OF 2025

ORDER:

This Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioner-accused No.2 seeking to quash the proceedings against him in C.C.No.6310 of 2022 on the file of learned XII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad at Nampally. The offence alleged against the petitioner is under Section 420 read with 34 I.P.C.

2. Heard Sri P. Vamsheedhar Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Jithender Rao Veeramalla, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent No.1-State.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner herein is only a witness to the document filed before the civil Court and that the petitioner has just signed the document as a witness. He further submitted that a witness cannot be arrayed as an accused for no fault of him. In support of his submissions, he relied upon a decision of the Honourable Apex Court in Md. Ibrahim and others v. State of Bihar and another, 1( 2009) 8 SCC 751 and submitted that in the said case, it was observed that the witness

to a document cannot be prosecuted. He, therefore, prayed to quash the proceedings in the present C.C. against the petitioner.

4. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that the petitioner herein is the son of accused No.1 and is not a third party. During the course of investigation, it came to light that accused No.1 in connivance with accused Nos.2 to 4 have created fake/fabricated undertaking, dated 11.10.2017, by forging the signature of the de facto complainant (LW.1) and filed a civil suit against the de facto complainant to gain wrongfully. He, therefore, prayed to dismiss the Criminal Petition.

5. Perused the record.

6. The allegations in the complaint point out the offence alleged under Section 420 I.P.C. against the petitioner. The recitals of the charge sheet point out that an undertaking, dated 11.10.2017, was brought into existence by accused No.1 in collusion with accused Nos.2 to 4 by forging the signature of the de facto complainant and using the said document, a civil suit was filed against the de facto complainant to gain wrongfully. Further, accused Nos.2 to 4 have signed the said document as witnesses. Petitioner herein-accused No.2 is none other than the son of accused No.1. It is further mentioned in the charge sheet that the said document was sent to Forensic Science Laboratory for comparison of signature of the de facto complainant and a report was furnished stating that the signature on the alleged undertaking was forged. The truth in the allegations and the expert opinion on the said document need to be tested during the course of trial.

7. In Md. Ibrahim’s case (supra), relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner, at paragraph No.14, it was held thus:

“14. When a sale deed is executed conveying a property claiming ownership thereto, it may be possible for the purchaser under such sale deed, to allege that the vendor has cheated him by making a false representation of ownership and fraudulently induced him to part with the sale consideration. But in this case the complaint is not by the purchaser. On the other hand, the purchaser is made a co-accused. It is not the case of the complainant that any of the accused tried to deceive him either by making a false or misleading representation or by any other action or omission, nor is it his case that they offered him any fraudulent or dishonest inducement to deliver any property or to consent to the retention thereof by any person or to intentionally induce him to do or omit to do anything which he would not do or omit if he were not so deceived. Nor did the complainant allege that the first appellant pretended to be the complainant while executing the sale deeds. Therefore, it cannot be said that the first accused by the act of executing sale deeds in favour of the second accused or the second accused by reason of being the purchaser, or the third, fourth and fifth accused, by rea