IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI CRIMINAL PETITION No. 3143 OF 2024 DATE: 23.03.2026 Between :

Doddi Srinivas … Petitioner/Accused No.3.

AND The State of Telangana, represented by its Public Prosecutor, High Court, and another.

… Respondents.

ORDER

This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (“Cr.P.C.”), seeking quashment of the proceedings against the petitioner in C.C. No.864 of 2022 pending on the file of the learned XI Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Secunderabad.

2. The petitioner is arrayed as Accused No.3 in the said Calendar Case. At the relevant point of time, the petitioner was serving as Senior Assistant at Sub-Registrar’s Office, Marredpally. The offence alleged against the petitioner is punishable under Section 420 read with Section

34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

3.1. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 04.05.2021, Respondent No.2 lodged a complaint alleging that Accused No.1, who is one of the legal heirs of late Smt. Noorunnissa Begum, the original owner of Plot No.47 admeasuring 252 square yards situated in Sri Malani Co-operative Housing Society, Thokatta Village, Bowenpally, Secunderabad, along with a residential structure fraudulently executed a settlement deed (Document No.766 of 2020) in favour of his son (Accused No.2), without obtaining consent or no-objection from the other legal heirs.

3.2. The specific allegation against the petitioner (Accused No.3) is that, in collusion with Accused Nos.1 and 2, he facilitated registration of the said document by undervaluing the property and stamp duty, thereby aiding the alleged fraudulent transaction. Based on the complaint, Crime No.133 of 2021 was registered, and upon completion of investigation, a charge sheet was filed.

4. I have heard Mr. Jakkula Sridhar, learned counsel for the petitioner; Mr. M. Vivekananda Reddy, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for Respondent No.1-State; and Mr. K. Jagadishwar Reddy, learned counsel for Respondent No.2.

5.1. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner, in his capacity as Sub-Registrar, discharged his statutory duties in accordance with law by registering the document presented before him after verifying compliance with procedural requirements, including payment of stamp duty and registration charges. It is contended that the allegation of collusion is wholly unsubstantiated, as no material has been collected during investigation to demonstrate any nexus between the petitioner and the private accused.

5.2. It is further submitted that no incriminating document or material evidencing manipulation of valuation or abuse of official position has been placed on record. The petitioner’s actions, at best, fall within the scope of his official duties. In the absence of any prima facie material indicating dishonest intention or conspiracy, continuation of proceedings would amount to abuse of process of law. It is also contended that sanction under Section 197 Cr.P.C. is a condition precedent for prosecution of a public servant for acts performed in discharge of official duties, and in the absence of such sanction, the proceedings are vitiated.

6.1. Per contra, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for Respondent No.2 contend that the petitioner, being the registering authority, failed to exercise due diligence in verifying the entitlement of Accused No.1 to execute the document. It is alleged that the registration was carried out in a coordinated manner with Accused Nos.1 and 2, thereby facilitating an unlawful transfer to the detriment of other legal heirs.

6.2. It is further submitted that the charge sheet contains statements of Accused Nos.1 and 2 indicating collusion with the petitioner, as well as an alleged confessional statement made by the petitioner before the Investigating Officer. On this basis, reiterates that the materials collected during invest