IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE JUVVADI SRIDEVI CRIMINAL PETITION No.6543 of 2024 DATED: 20^th FEBRUARY, 2026 Between Pailla Gopal Reddy …Petitioner AND M.A.Mateem and Another …Respondents

O R D E R

This Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioner-accused seeking to quash the proceedings against him in C.C.No.386 of 2018 on the file of the learned I Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate at Miryalaguda, registered for the offences under Sections 420, 466, 467, 468 of Indian Penal Code (for short ‘IPC’).

02. Heard Mr.P.Prabhakar Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner-accused and Mr.M.Ramachandra Reddy, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for State-respondent No.2.

Though the notice served upon the respondent No.1, none appeared. perused the record.

03. The petitioner committed default in repayment of the loan, and the outstanding amount due was Rs.43,19,058/- as on 01.03.2016. The Bank classified the cash credit account as a Non-Performing Asset (NPA) on 30.04.2015. On 21.11.2015, the petitioner approached the Bank and requested that no coercive steps be taken. The then Branch Manager granted some time, upon which the petitioner executed an undertaking letter dated 21.11.2015, admitting the liability and assuring payment of Rs.25,00,000/-. In furtherance of the same, he issued a post- dated cheque dated 26.11.2015. The petitioner also requested the Bank not to present the cheque immediately and sought release of the property belonging to his wife, assuring that the dues would be cleared. Believing the representation of the petitioner, the Bank deferred presentation of the cheque. However, when the petitioner failed to liquidate the dues, the succeeding Branch Manager presented the cheque on 25.02.2016 for clearance. The cheque was returned unpaid with the endorsement “Account Closed.” Thereafter, the Bank caused issuance of a legal notice dated 14.03.2016, which was duly served on the petitioner. Subsequently, the petitioner filed a quash petition before this Court in Crl.P.No.10025 of 2017, taking a plea mainly in respect of another cheque bearing No.410366, contending that the said cheque was never presented and that no statutory notice had been issued in relation thereto. When the Bank applied for certified copies of the record, it was noticed, to its surprise, that the original undertaking letter dated 21.11.2015 was missing from the Court file. In its place, a similar undertaking letter dated 27.11.2015 had been filed, containing identical recitals except that the assured amount of Rs.25,00,000/- was altered to Rs.25,000/-. The Bank, therefore, alleges that the petitioner, in collusion with certain section staff, fabricated and substituted the document, thereby playing fraud upon the Court.

04. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, during the pendency of the proceedings between the petitioner and Indian Overseas Bank, the parties entered into a compromise. Pursuant to the said settlement, the petitioner paid the entire outstanding amount. Consequently, the complaint filed by the Bank was withdrawn on 26.06.2019, and the petitioner has been acquitted. It is further contended that, in the course of investigation, none of the witnesses examined by the prosecution stated that the petitioner had taken away or substituted the original cheque or the undertaking letter from the Court record.

According to the learned counsel, the judicial file is not accessible to the petitioner, and it is the Court staff who were in custody of the record and responsible for its maintenance. Therefore, fastening criminal liability upon the petitioner, without fixing responsibility on the persons who had actual control over the file, is wholly unjustified. Learned counsel would further submit that the petitioner has been falsely implicated and that, even if the entire material collected during investigation is taken at its face value, the essential ingredients of the alleged offen