Partly allowed

Yedla Srinaiah(A.2) v. The State of Telangana and another

Telangana HC18 Jul 2023CRLP/8745/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court disposed of criminal petitions under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of criminal proceedings. Court held Section 409 IPC inapplicable as accused were not public servants. Proceedings under other sections continued in court below.

What did the court decide?

Quashed offence under Section 409 IPC. Directed to continue proceedings for other offences under Sections 417, 464, 466, 468, 420 and 120-B IPC. Dispensed daily attendance of accused.

Yedla Srinaiah(A.2) Vs The State of Telangana… — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

[³²¹⁶ ]

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶3

TUESDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE M.LAXMAN

¶6

CRIMI NAL PETIT]ON NOs: 2361 0F 2020 ANO 87450F 2021

¶7

CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 2361 OF 2020

¶8

Between:

¶9

Badugula Lingaiah, (A.1), Sio Kotaiah, Aged 42 years, Ration Shop Deater, Rl/o Yadagripally Village, Miryalguda Mandal, Nalgonda District.

¶10

...PETITIONER/ACCUSED-1

¶11

AND

¶12

t. tne State of Telangana, Through S.H:O. lVliryalguda I Town police Station, Rep. by Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana, Hyderabad

¶13

1. Principal Junior Civil Judge, Miryalguda, Nalgonda District.

¶14

...RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT

¶15

Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal^petition, the High Court may be pleased to quash the proceedings in C.C.No. 1046 of 2016 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate, Miryalguda, in so far as the petitioner/A.1 is concern.

¶16

l.A. NO: 1OF 2020

¶17

Petition under Section 482 ot Cr.P.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to stay all further proceedings, including the personal appearance of the Pettioner/A.'1 in C.C.No. 1046 of 2016 on the file of Judicial First Class [\4agistrate, Miryalguda, during the pendency of the above criminal petition.

¶18

./' CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 8745 OF 2021

¶19

Between:

¶20

Yedla Srinaiah(A.2), S/o Pailaiah, Aged 40^years, Occ. Electrician, R/o Yadagripally Village, l,4iryalguda Mandal, Nalgonda District.

¶21

...PETITIONERYACCUSED.2

¶22

AND

¶23

The State of Telangana, Through S.H.O. tt/iryalguda^{I TownPolice Station,} Rep. by Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of^{Telangana, Hyderabad}

¶24

Principal Junior Civil Judge, Miryalguda, Nalgonda^District

¶25

...RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT

¶26

Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C^praying that^{in the circumstances} stated in the tvlemorandum of Grounds^{of Criminal Petition,the High Court may} be pleased to^quash the^{proceedingsin C.C.No. 1046 of 2016 on the file of} Judicial First Class l/agistrate,^{ltrlrryalguda.}

¶27

l.A. NO: 1OF 2021

¶28

Fetition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C^{praying that in the circumstances} stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of^{Criminal Petition,the High Court may} be pleased to stay all further^{proceedings, includingthe personal appearanceof} the Petitioner/A.2 in C.C.No. 1046 of^{2016 on the file of Judicial FirstClass} IVlagistrate, I\Iiryalguda during the^pendency of the^{above criminalpetition.}

¶29

These Petitions coming on for hearing, upon^{perusingthe Memorandum of} Grounds of Criminal Petition and^{upon hearing the arguments of Sri Mahadev} Anyarambhatla, Advocate for the^{Petilioner in both petitions and AdditionalPublic} Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondents^{in both petitions.}

¶30

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶31

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE M.LAXMAN

¶32

CRIMINAL PETITION Nos.236l^{of2O2Oand 8745 of2O2l}

¶33

COMMON ORDER:

¶34

Since the challenge in all the criminal petitions is to^the sarne proceedings, they are disposed of by way of this^common order.

¶35

Both the criminal petitions are frled under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.), 1973 seeking to quash the proceedings against the petitioners/ accused Nos. 1 and 2 in C.C.No.1046 of 2016 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate at Miryalguda, (hereinafter referred to as 'Court below'), arising out of Crime Itlo.304 of 2013 of Miryalguda Police Station, Nalgonda District, for the offences punishable under Sections 417, 4O9, 464, 466, 468, 42O end 120-8 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (lPC), 1860.

¶36

Criminal Petition No.236 I of 2O2O is filed by accused No.1 and Criminal Petition No.8745 of 2O2l is filed by accused No.2.

¶37

The sum and substances of the case of the prosecution is that accused allegedly produced a solvency certificate, which rvas aliegedly issued by the Panchayat Secrctary of Rainipalam Village FAC of Yadgaripally Wlage, to prove their solvency for release of

¶38

¶39

accused in another case. lts sureties, in terms of bail order granted by concerned Court. The Magistrate therein tvas made to believe that the said document was genuine. Consequently, he accepted the solvencv of the accused herein and released the accused therein. Subsequently, the panchayat Secretary made a complaint to the Magistrate alleging that solvency certificate produced by the accused herein was fake/forged and it was not issued and sigrred by him. In the said circumstances, the Magistrate referred the m:rtte r to police for investigation and pursuant to the said invcstigation, the present criminal pro.ceedings are initiated against the petitioners herein/accused Nos.1 and 2.

¶40

It is the contention of the learr-red counsel for the petitioners that the alleged offence does not attract offence under Section 409 of the IPC. It is also his contention that there is no element of cheating and inducement. According to him, the document was not forged and it is genuine one, which is clear from the expert opinion, wherein it is clearly stated that the disputed document i.e., the solvency certificate ar-rd the admitted document were executed by same person. Therefore, continuation of the present proceedings against the petition ers/ accused Nos. 1 and 2 is clear abuse of process of lau,.

¶41

,-_)

¶42

¶43

Learned Additional Public Prosecutor contended that the expert opinion is not conclusive evidence and it is only one piece of evidence, which may be taken advantage by the accused during the course of trial and not in the present proceedings. It is also conterided that oral evidence of the Panchayat Secretary clearly demonstrates that the solvency certificate which is produced for release of accused in another case does not belong to his office and it was not authored by him. In the light of said evidence, there is a case of forgery of document and cheating. The accused committed cheating by making the Magistrate to accept the said forged document. Therefore, whether weightage can be given to the oral evidence or to the expert opinion can only be decided in the trial and not in proceedings under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. Hence, he prayed to dismiss the present petition.

¶44

7 . The a-llegations show that the petitioners produced solvency certificate showing that they own certain property. According to them, the sarne was executed by Panchayat Secretary i.e., L.W. 1. The complaint made by the Panchayat Secretar5r to the Magistrate indicates that it is not authored by him. According to him, the signature on the said document does not belong to him and the salne ls forged and that the said solvency certificate was not

¶45

¶46

issued from his office. It is not in dispute that the Magistrate u,as made to believe that the soh,ency certificate was genuine one and he accepted the same and ordered for release of accused in another case in terms of bail order granted thereiu. After the Pancl-rayat Secretary gave a compiaint, rvith regard to genuineness of the solvency certificate, the Magistrate referred the same to the police for investigation. Subsequent to completion of investigation, the present criminal proceedin5ls are initiated against the petitioners hereir-r / accused Nos. 1 and 2.

¶47

In order to attract offence under Section 409 of the IpC, the prosecution must establish that the person, who is accused of offence of cheating must be a public servant or banker or merchant or agent entrusted u,ith any property or with any dominion over property

¶48

In the present case, thc accused are not public servants or bankers or merchants or ager-rts and they ivere not entrusted with any property or dominion over property. Therefore, Section 409 of the IPC does not attract against the accused.

¶49

The other offence charge sheeted were under Sections 417, 464,466,46a,42O and 120 B read with 34 of the IpC. prima facie^there are allegations from the^panchayat secretar5r that the

I I

solvency certificate produced by the^{petitioners/accused is forged} one and such certificate^{was not authored or issuedfromhis} office. In view of such allegations, this Court^{cannot go into the} correctness of such allegations.

¶54

It is true that the expert opinion was^obtained by^{the police} during investigation and the expert found that writings^{on the} solvency certilicate and admitted writings and signature^were found to be similar and authored by same person. It is^needless to say that the expert opinion is not conclusive^proof. It is one of the evidence, which is to be considered while appreciating the evidence of Panchayat Secretary. The accused can take advantage of the same during the course of trial before the Court below.^This Court cannot decide whether weightage can be given to expert opinion or the oral evidence of the witness. This Court cannot conduct trial while dea-ling with proceedings under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. Hence, the criminal proceedings against^the petitioners/ accused cannot be completely quashed.

¶55

In the result, the Criminal Petitions are partly allowed and the offence punishable under Sectio n 4O9 of the IPC is alone quashed and so far as the remaining cffences under Sections 417, 464,466, 468, 42O and 120-B read with Section 34 of the IPC, the

¶56

r -.i

¶57

¶58

Court below is directed to continue the procee<iings against the petitioners herein/accused Nos. I and 2 in C.C.No. 1046 of 2016. Further, the attendance of the petitioners/ accused Nos.1 ald 2 on every date of hearing is dispensed rvith, but the petitioners/accused Nos.1 and 2 are directed to appear before the Court below as and when their presence is required by the Court. No order as to costs. Miscellaneous applications. if any, pending shall stand closed.

¶59

¶60

Sd/.K.AMMAJI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPYII ,/

SECTION OFFICER

To, j

The Judicial First Class Magistrate,^Miryalguda.

¶65

The Station House Officer,^{tr,4iryalguda I Town Police Station, Nalgonda} District.

¶66

J Two CCs to the Public Prosecutor,^{HighCoJrt for the State of Telanganaat} Hyderabad [OUT]

¶67

4 One CC to Sri Nlahadev Anyarambhatla,^Advocate [OPUC] 5 Two CD Copies plp

tl t.

HIGH COURT

DATED:1 810712023

COMMON ORDER

CRtP.Nos .2361 of²⁰²⁰ And 8745 of2021

¶75

rE s r.'l
F
ir.
..:.
Lr 1 s AUE 2SZl
:.

¶76

1a,.r-rd ALLOWING^{BOTH THE CRIMINAL} PETITIONS

¶77

@ro{*

¶78

Yedla Srinaiah(A.2) v. The State of Telangana and another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Yedla Srinaiah(A.2) v. The State of Telangana and another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Andugula Narsingh Rao Vs The State of Telangana

Kadavath Soni bai Vs The State of Telangana

Smt. Kavali Lingamma Vs K. Raghavender Reddy

Peddagani Chandra Shekar, Vs The State of Telangana

Badugula Lingaiah Vs The State of Telangana, And Another

Rajesh Kolhapure Vs The State of Telangana