Criminal proceedings should be quashed when the complaint is maliciously instituted to wreak vengeance under the guise of an offence, especially where allegations are inherently improbable, lack independent corroboration, and arise out of long-standing family discord, effectively abusing the process of the court.

1. These Criminal Petitions are filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. by the petitioners-accused Nos.1 and 2, seeking to quash the proceedings against them in C.C.No.868 of 2024 pending on the file of the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge-cum-Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Siddipet (for short ‘trial Court’), registered for the offences under Sections 417, 420, 468 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code (for short ‘IPC’).

2. Since both the criminal petitions are arising out of C.C.No.868 of 2024, they are heard together and disposed of by way of this common order.

3. Heard Mr. P.Raja Sripathi Rao, learned Senior Counsel representing Mr. B.Arjun Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner in Crl.P.No.7809 of 2024; Mr. K.Rajashekar, learned counsel for the petitioner in Crl.P.No.6850 of 2024 and Mr. P.Vamsheedhar Reddy, learned counsel for respondent No.2-de facto complainant and Mr. M.Ramachandra Reddy, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent No.1-State.

Brief facts of the case:

4.1. The petitioner-accused No.1 is the husband of the de facto complainant. Due to matrimonial disputes, the petitioner-accused No.1 filed F.C.O.P.No.155 of 2010 before the Family Court at Secunderabad, seeking dissolution of marriage. Thereafter, the de facto complainant filed Tr.C.M.P.No.503 of 2010 through petitioner accused No.2 before this Court seeking transfer of the said F.C.O.P. to the Family Court at Siddipet. This Court, by order dated 29.09.2010, granted stay of all further proceedings in the said F.C.O.P. Subsequently, the petitioner-accused No.1 did not pursue the said F.C.O.P., for the reasons best known to him and the same was dismissed as not pressed on 21.04.2011. In view thereof, Tr.C.M.P No.503 of 2010 was also closed.

4.2. Thereafter, on 27.06.2022, the de facto complainant received summons in O.S.No.299 of 2022 from the Court of the Principal Junior Civil Judge at Siddipet, through which she came to know about the whereabouts of petitioner-accused No.1 and her children. On reading of the plaint averments, the de facto complainant was shocked to know that her daughter Yellu Pranavi, at the behest of petitioner-accused No.1, had instituted a suit for partition against her father, brother, two sisters and herself, claiming 1/15th share in the self acquired properties of her father and brother and had also described the de facto complainant as a person of unsound mind. Her father and brother appeared before the said Court on the first hearing of the civil suit and sought time to file vakalat and counter.

4.3. Upon further enquiry made by her brother namely Mr. A. Srinivas Reddy, they came to know on 11.08.2022 that petitioner-accused No.1, in criminal conspiracy with petitioner-accused No.2, had filed M.C.No.14 of 2011 before the Court of Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate at Siddipet, seeking maintenance, by forging the signatures of the de facto complainant on the vakalat and petitions. It is the case of the de facto complainant that the signature therein is not hers and the case was filed without her knowledge. Subsequently, petitioners-accused Nos.1 and 2 allowed the said maintenance case to be dismissed for default on 01.10.2012. As the de facto complainant was in rehabilitation centre since May, 2022, she lodged the present complaint on 15.09.2022.

4.4. Basing on the said complaint, the Investigation Officer registered a case in Crime No.342 of 2022 and took up investigation. During the course of investigation, the Investigation Officer recorded the statements of the witnesses and collected relevant documents. He also obtained expert opinion, wherein it was opined that the red enclosed signatures marked as S1 to S32 did not tally with questioned signatures i.e., Q1 to Q3.

4.5. After completion of the investigation, the Investigation Officer filed a charge sheet