IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HON’BLE SMT. JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA Date:22.01.2026 Between:

J. Rajeshwar Rao …Petitioner/Accused No.4 And State of Telangana, Rep. by the Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana, Hyderabad and another.

... Respondents

ORDER:

This Criminal Petition is filed seeking to quash the proceedings against the petitioner-accused No.4 in CC No.748 of 2025 on the file of the Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class (Mobile) Court, Medak. The offence alleged against the petitioner is under Section 420 IPC.

2. Heard Sri D. Linga Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Jithender Rao Veeramalla, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for respondents.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner herein is a retired MRO and that the alleged offence has occurred during the period of discharging his official duties, in which case prior sanction is required to initiate proceedings against the public servant and hence, continuation of proceedings against the petitioner without prior sanction would be an abuse of process of law. Learned counsel has further submitted that the petitioner herein has never committed any such alleged acts of cheating and has never deceived the de facto complainant in any manner and hence, prayed to quash the proceedings against the petitioner.

4. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor has submitted that the prosecution could collect ample material against the petitioner herein to prove that he acted in collusion with accused No.1 and has made fraudulent entries in the revenue records and prepared a fake pattedar pass book and hence, he prayed to dismiss the petition.

5. Perused the record.

6. The petitioner herein is accused No.4 in CC No.748 of

2025. He is stated to be a retired MRO. It is alleged that accused No.1 is the owner of an extent of Acs.8.25 gts., in Sy. No.283 and that he sold an extent of Ac.1.23 gts., in Sy. No.283/e to the de facto complainant and thereafter, he joined hands with the petitioner- accused No.4 and the other accused and got prepared a fake pattedar passbook No.T08200080333 and pahani Nakkal No.TSGGCC730737250 and sold out the same extent of land in Sy.No.283/e to LW.4. When the de facto complainant has not received any cheque/amount under Rythu Bandhu Scheme, he got enquired with the MRO office, then he has learnt about the fraudulent registration and also not entering the land in his name in the records by accused Nos.3 and 4. Thus, there are specific allegations against the petitioner herein pointing out prima facie case for the offence under Section 420 IPC. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that since the petitioner is a Government Servant, prior sanction under Section 197 Cr.P.C. is essential to prosecute him. The relevant provision is extracted hereunder for the sake of reference:

“197. Prosecution of Judges and public servants.— (1) When any person who is or was a Judge or Magistrate or a public servant not removable from his office save by or with the sanction of the Government is accused of any offence alleged to have been committed by him while acting or purporting to act in the discharge of his official duty, no Court shall take cognizance of such offence except with the previous sanction 6 [save as otherwise provided in the Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act, 2013 (1 of 2014)]—

(a) in the case of a person who is employed or, as the case may be, was at the time of commission of the alleged offence employed, in connection with the affairs of the Union, of the Central Government;

(b) in the case of a person who is employed or, as the case may be, was at the time of commission of the alleged offence employed, in connection with the affairs of a State, of the State Government:

Provided that where the alleged offence was committed by a person referred to in clause (b) during the period while a Proclamation issued under clause (1) of article 356 of the Co