Disposed¶37

Mohammed Zulfakhar Ali @ Chand Pasha v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC25 Apr 2025CRLP/5590/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Quashment of FIR refused at investigation stage; S.528 BNSS petition by accused No.10; Crime No.216 of 2025, P.S. Rajendranagar, Cyberabad Commissionerate; offences u/ss 318(4), 319(2), 336(3), 338, 340(1), 340(2) r/w 3(5) BNS; alleged fabrication of Notary GPA documents by impersonation; alleged Rs.4,50,000/- payment per co-accused statements; Mohammed Ibrahim v. State of Bihar (2009) 1 SCC 751 distinguished (post-cognizance authority); liberty reserved to seek remedy after final result; Telangana High Court; Justice N. Tukaramji; decided 25-04-2025.

What did the court decide?

Quashment declined at the investigation stage; Criminal Petition disposed of reserving liberty to the petitioner to file appropriate remedy if the matter precipitates in the final result; pending miscellaneous applications, if any, closed. ¶37

Mohammed Zulfakhar Ali @ Chand Pasha Vs The State of… — Cheating and Forgery | Telangana HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶37

Issue for consideration

Whether the criminal proceedings in Crime No.216 of 2025 against the petitioner (accused No.10) ought to be quashed under Section 528 BNSS while the investigation is still underway. +1 more

¶22

Court's answer

Having regard to the depth of allegations against the petitioner, the reported stage of investigation and the prima facie case for investigation, there is no tenable ground for the Court to interfere with the investigation; quashment at this stage declined.

¶32

Ratio / Principle

The authority cited by the petitioner (Mohammed Ibrahim) was distinguished: the situation there arose after investigation and taking of cognizance by the Court concerned, whereas the instant case is at the stage of investigation.

¶32

Key takeaways

Liberty reserved to the petitioner to file appropriate remedy if the matter precipitates in the final result; on that basis the Criminal Petition is disposed of.ratio¶36

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court for the State of Telangana (N. Tukaramji, J., 25-04-2025) disposed of a Criminal Petition under Section 528 BNSS filed by accused No.10 seeking quashment of the proceedings in Crime No.216 of 2025 of P.S. Rajendranagar, Cyberabad Commissionerate, registered for offences punishable under Sections 318(4), 319(2), 336(3), 338, 340(1), 340(2) r/w 3(5) BNS (alleged fabrication of fake documents by impersonating the de facto complainant). Held: having regard to the depth of allegations, the reported stage of investigation and the prima facie case for investigation, there was no tenable ground to interfere with the investigation. The Supreme Court decision in Mohammed Ibrahim v. State of Bihar, (2009) 1 SCC 751, cited by the petitioner, was distinguished as arising after investigation and cognizance, the instant case being at the investigation stage. Petition disposed of reserving liberty to file appropriate remedy if the matter precipitates in the final result; pending miscellaneous applications closed.

¶1

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶2

FRIDAY, THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI

¶5

CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 5590 OF 2O2s

¶6

Between:

¶7

Mohammed Zulfakhar Ali @ Chand Pasha, S/o. Mohammed Sarwar, Aged. 37 Years, Occ. Private Employee, Rl/o. 12-1-989, North Lallaguda, Near Community Hall, Secunderabad, Hyderabad, Telangana State-500 017.

¶8

...PETITIONER/ACCUSED

¶9

ANO

¶10

The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of Telangana at Hyderabad.

¶11

Vinita Choudari, D/o. C. Rambabu, Aged about 57^years, Occ. Business, R/o. H.No.15/2, 1st Cross Street, Beach Home Avenue, Chennai, Tamilnadu State.

¶12

...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANTS

¶13

Petition under Section 528 of BNSS^praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to^quash the criminal^proceedings in Crime No.216 of 2f25 of P.S. Rajendranagar, Cyberabad Commissionerate for the offenoe under Sec. 318^(4), 31e (2), 336 (3), 338, 340^(1), 340^{(2), rtw.3 (5)} BNS

¶14

l.A. NO: 2OF 2025

¶15

Petition under Section 528 of BNSS^praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds^of Criminal^Petition, the^{High Courtmay} be pleased to stay of all further^proceedings including arrest of the^{petitioner /} Accused No.10 in Crime No.216 of 2025 of P.S. Rajendranagar, Cyberabad Commisinarate for the offence under Sec 31B^(4), 319^{(2),336 (3),} 338, 340^(1), 34o (2), r/w. 3 (5) BNS

¶16

This Petition coming on for hearing, upon^{perusing the Memorandumof} Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of^Sri Veera Babu Gandu, Advocate for the Petitioner and the^{Public Prosecutoron behalfof} the Respondent No. 1 None appeared for the Respondent No. 2

¶17

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶18

¶19

THE HONOURABLE^{SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI}

¶20

CRIMINAL PETITION^{No.5590 0F 2025}

¶21

ORDER

¶22

This Criminal Petition^{is filed under Section528 of Bharatiya} Nagarik Suraksha^{Sanhita, 2023 (tor short 'BNSS, 2023')seeking} quashment of the^{proceedings in Crime No'216 of 2025 on the file of the} Rajendranagar^{Policestation, cyberabad commissionerate,againstthe} petitioner-accused No.¹ 0.

¶23

The petitioner is^{arrayedas accusedNo'10 in Crime No.216of} 2025 registered for^{the offences punishableunder sections318(4),} 319(2), 336(3), 338,^{340 (1), 340(2) r/w 3(5)ofBNS.}

¶24

3 Heard]vlr.G.VeeraBabu,learnedcounselforthepetitionerand Mr.Jithender Rao^{Veeramalla,learned Additional Public Prosecutor} appearing for the^{respondent No.1-State}

¶25

The prosecution case^{in brief is that the accusedin connivance} fabricated and created^{fake documents by impersonating the de facto} complainant.

¶26

Learned counsel^{for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner} is innocent and his avocation^{is not document writeras alleged by the} prosecution. Further, the^{petitioner never cheated or forged any} document and the^{statementsin the remandcase diary are concocted} and he has been^{falsely implicated in the offenceFurther, pleaded that}

¶27

¶28

¶29

even if the execution of sale deed is believed, it will not amount tc' commission of forgery and the offences attributed against ttre petitioner would not be applicable for want of essential factors. He cited authority of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mohammed lbrahim and Others Vs. Stafe of Bihar and anotherl and prayed for quahsment.

¶30

Learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that there are specific allegations against the petitioner. The statements made by the co-accused are revealing that the pelitioner had taken Rs.4,50,000/_ for fabricating the Notary General Power of Attorney documents and at this stage investigation is underway and intervention at this stage would be premature.

¶31

I have considered the submissions and perused the materials placed on record.

¶32

Having regard to the depth of allegations against the petitioner and the reported stage of investigation and the prima facie case for investigation, this Court is of the view that there is no tenable ground to interfere with the investigation. Further, the situation considered in the authority cited by the petitioner is after investigation and taking of cognizance by the Court concerned and the instant case is at the stage of investigation, hence distinguishable

¶33

'^{(2009)I scc 751}

¶34

¶35

.,'9. For the aforesaid^{reasons, reserving the liberty to the petitionerto}

¶36

file appropriate remedy if matter^{precipitatesin the final result, this}

¶37

Criminal Petition is disposed of

¶38

Pending miscellaneous applications,^if any,^{shallstand closed}

¶39