IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA CRIMINAL PETITION Nos.13741 OF 2016 AND 8486 OF 2019 DATE: 26-02-2026 Between:

K. Veereshwar … Petitioner And The State of Telangana, Represented by its Public Prosecutor, High Court Buildings, Hyderabad-66 Through Station House Officer of Police Station Thukaramgate, Secunderabad and another ... Respondents

COMMON ORDER:

Since both the cases arise out of the same crime, both these Criminal Petitions are heard together and disposed of by way of this common order.

2. Crl.P.No.13741 of 2016 is filed by the petitioner/party-in- person (complainant) seeking to recall the order, dated 05.11.2014, passed by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Crl.P.No.10568 of 2014, whereby, the Criminal Petition was disposed of holding that the prosecution in C.C.No.761 of 2013 on the file of learned X Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Secunderabad, against respondent No.2 (accused) does not lie for want of sanction.

3. Crl.P.No.8486 of 2019 is filed by the petitioner-accused seeking to set aside the order, dated 13.07.2018, passed in C.C.SR.No.430 of 2018 (numbered as C.C.No.505 of 2018) by the learned XXII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Secunderabad and consequently, quash the proceedings in C.C.No.505 of 2018 on the file of learned XI Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Secunderabad.

4. Heard Sri K. Veereshwar, petitioner/party-in-person in Crl.P.No.13741 of 2016 and respondent No.2/party-in-person in Crl.P.No.8486 of 2019; Sri D. Arun Kumar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent No.1-State; Sri P. Vamsheedhar Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner in Crl.P.No.8486 of 2019; and Sri B.S.N. Naidu, learned counsel for respondent No.2 in Crl.P.No.13741 of 2016.

5. For the sake of convenience, the parties are hereinafter referred to as they were arrayed in Crl.P.No.13741 of 2016.

6. The facts of the case, in brief, are that on 08.01.2007 at about 11:30 hours, one T. Murahari Rao, Senior Personnel Officer, CPO’s Office, Rail Nilayam, Secunderabad, lodged a complaint stating that a person by name K. Veereshwar (petitioner herein) took personal interview with the Chief Personnel Officer, South Central Railways, and requested for employment and produced a letter bearing No.E(NG)II 2001/RC- 2/10(pt), dated 02.12.2004, which was found by him to be a forged one, on verification with the Railway Board. The contents of the letter are to the effect that the said letter is supposed to have been issued by the Railway Board to one R. Sunder Vadan, Disabled Welfare and State Commissioner, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad, directing the said K. Veereshwar, to appear for RRB examination in response to advertisements to gain employment in Railways, and thereafter, he shall meet the Chief Personnel Officer and request for employment. On verification with the Railway Board, the Railways found that the said letter was not issued by the Railway Board, New Delhi, and the same has been forged. As per the said contents, a case in Crime No.9 of 2007 was registered and investigation was taken up by the Sub-Inspector of Police, by name G. Ram Babu, succeeded by K. Yadagiri (respondent No.2 herein). During the course of investigation, the Sub-Inspector of Police has examined T. Murahari Rao and a witness-MD. Akthar, on 21.03.2007. The said officer i.e., T. Murahari Rao has stated to the police that he has granted personal interview to Sri K. Veereshwar on 17.11.2006 and that the said candidate has produced a recommendation letter and the Railway Board vide its letter, dated 13.12.2006, has informed that the said letter was not issued by the Railway Board and it is a forged one and thus, he filed a complaint with the police against the petitioner herein i.e., K. Veereshwar and the same was registered as Crime No.9 of

2007.

7. Further, in the year 2001, the petitioner approached this Court by filing W.P.No.5617 of 2001 and sought a direc