THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE JUVVADI SRIDEVI CRIMINAL PETITION No.1620 of 2024

O R D E R

This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.

by the petitioner-accused No.2 seeking to quash the proceedings against her in C.C.No.4507 of 2019 pending on the file of the learned XVII Additional Metropolitan Magistrate at Hyderabad, Nampally (for short ‘trial Court’). The offence alleged against the petitioner is under Section 420 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short ‘IPC’).

2. Heard Mr. Ajay Kumar, learned counsel representing Mr. N.Sheshidhar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. M.Ramachandra Reddy, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent No.1-State. There is no representation for respondent No.2-de facto complainant. Perused the record.

3. The brief facts of the case are that the de facto complainant and others are the joint owners of the land admeasuring Ac.3.34 gts. in Sy.No.106 (old Sy.No.78) situated at Moinbagh, Shaikpet Mandal, Hyderabad (hereinafter referred to as ‘subject land’). The petitioner-accused No.2 along with accused Nos.1 and 3 created a Registered Agreement of Sale-cum-General Power of Attorney bearing document No.4254 of 2005, dated 03.12.2005, by forging the signatures and thumb impressions of the de facto complainant and other joint owners, without their knowledge and got registered the subject land in their favour. At the time of registration, the de facto complainant is in Riyadh. On 20.01.2015, when he returned to India, he came to know that the accused have forged his signature and thumb impression on the said document to grab his share.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there is a delay in lodging the complaint. Accused No.1 is the close friend of the petitioner’s husband and upon his request the petitioner purchased the subject land as an investment. The petitioner is a nominal party to the Registered Agreement of Sale-cum-General Power of Attorney bearing document No.4254 of 2005, dated 03.12.2005 and she is not aware of the forgery of signatures and the vendors. Except alleging that the petitioner purchased the subject land, there is no specific allegation against her. The document is a registered one and it was not used in any manner to cause loss to the de facto complainant. According to the charge sheet, the offence of forgery is not made out. When the offence of forgery is not made out, the question of cheating does not arise. It is stated in the statement of de facto complainant recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. that his family members have executed the said the Registered Agreement of Sale-cum- General Power of Attorney bearing document No.4254 of 2005, dated 03.12.2005, however, they were not made as accused. The proceedings against the prime accused i.e., accused No.1 were quashed by this Court in Crl.P.No.4507 of 2019 on 16.11.2023. Since the petitioner herein also stands on the same footing, he prayed to quash the proceedings against the petitioner.

5. On the other hand, learned Additional Public Prosecutor contended that the Registered Agreement of Sale-cum-General Power of Attorney bearing document No.4254 of 2005, dated 03.12.2005, was executed in the absence of the de facto complainant. There are specific allegations against the petitioner. All the allegations levelled in the complaint as well as the charge sheet are subject matter of trial. Hence, this is not a fit case to quash the proceedings at this stage and prayed to dismiss the petition.

6. As seen from the record, it is evident that there are triable issues and the truth or otherwise of the allegations levelled against the petitioner can only be decided after conducting full-

fledged trial by the trial Court. All the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner shall be raised before the trial Court during the course of arguments.

7. In view of the above, this Court is not inclined to quash the proceedings against the petitioner-accused