Smt. Pasunooti Meenakshi Vs The State of Telangana — Cheating and Forgery | Telangana HC (2026)

Smt. Pasunooti Meenakshi Vs The State of Telangana — Cheating and Forgery | Telangana HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Criminal Petition disposed of, dispensing with the attendance of the petitioners before the trial Court, provided they are represented by a counsel on every date of hearing and appear whenever their presence is required during the course of trial; miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.

Issue for consideration

Whether the criminal proceedings against the petitioners/accused Nos.1 to 4 in C.C.No.1896 of 2025 (offences under Sections 420, 468 and 471 read with 34 IPC, alleging creation of a forged Will Deed and execution of a Gift Deed) are liable to be quashed. +1 more

Court's answer

The contention of the petitioners' counsel that the Will Deed and the Gift Deed are valid documents, and of the de facto complainant that they are forged documents, are triable issues; the truth or otherwise of the allegations can be culled out only after a full-fledged trial and the strength of the documentary evidence needs to be tested during the course of trial. Hence, the proceedings in C.C.No.1896 of 2025 cannot be quashed against the petitioners.

Ratio / Principle

In the facts and circumstances of the case, the attendance of the petitioners before the trial Court is dispensed with, provided they are represented by a counsel before the trial Court on every date of hearing and shall appear before the trial Court whenever their presence is required during the course of trial.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Criminal Petition under S.528 BNSS to quash proceedings in C.C.No.1896 of 2025 on the file of the III Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Hanumakonda, arising out of Crime No.330 of 2024 of P.S. KUC, Warangal, for offences under SS.420, 468 and 471 r/w 34 IPC — allegation that a forged Will Deed was created following the death of the mother-in-law and a Gift Deed executed in favour of petitioner Nos.2 to 4, causing loss to the de facto complainant — petitioners contend the Will Deed and Gift Deed are valid documents, de facto complainant contends they are forged; held, these are triable issues, the truth can be culled out only after a full-fledged trial and the strength of the documentary evidence must be tested during trial — proceedings cannot be quashed — however, attendance of accused Nos.1 to 4 before the trial Court dispensed with, provided they are represented by counsel on every date of hearing and appear whenever their presence is required during trial — Criminal Petition disposed of; miscellaneous petitions, if any, closed.

134441

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

FRIDAY. THE NINTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX

PRESENT

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA CRIMINAL PETITION NO:'15344 OF 202s

Between

Smt. Pasunooti ltleenakshi, Wo.lvlallesham, Age 55 years, Occ. Housewife, R/o H.No.16-3-692, Ekashilanagar, Fort Road, Warangal^- 506 002.

Pasunooti IViounika, D/o lVlallesham, Age 30^years, Occ: Advocate, R/o^H.No.16 3 692, Ekashilanagar, Fort Road. Warangal 506 002

Pasunooti Sudheshna, D/o Mallesham, Age 28 years, Occ: Software Employee, R/o H.No.16 3-692, Ekashilanagar, Fort Road, Warangal - 506^002-

Pasunooti Vishnu Bhargav, S/o tt/allesham, Age 26^years, Occ: Pvt, Employee, R/o H.No- 16-3-692, Ekashilanagar, Fort Road, Warangal - 506^002-

...Petitioners/Accused No.^'l to 4

AND

The State of Telangana, Rep. by the Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana, Hyderabad.

Smt. Boorla Laxmi, W/o Late Rajamouli, Age 48^years, Occ. Housewife, R/o.H.No.2-1 1-'1 26, Vidyatanyapuri, Hanumakonda, Warangal District.

...RespondenUDefacto Complainant

Petition under Section 528 of B.N.S.S. praying that in the circumstances statedⁱⁿ the Irilemorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may^{be pleased} to^quash the Charge Sheet and C.C.No 1896 of 2025 on the file of the lll Additional Judicial^First Class lvlagistrate, Hanumakonda, arising out of Crime No.33O of 2024 of P.S.^KUC, Warangal.

=ffi@z.? :/ t ,,/,.,,

r.A. NO 1 0F 2025

PetitionunderSection52SofB.N,S's.prayingthatinthecircLllstancesstatedinthe lvlemorandumofGroundsotCriminatPetltion,theHighCourtn:a1t'epleasedtostayall further^{proceedingsincluding appearanceof petitioners/ac;Llsed No'1 to 4in} C,C-No.l3g6ot2025onthefileofthelllAdditionalJudiciaFrjtClaSSl,4agistrate Hanumakonda^{pending disposalof quash petition}

This Petition^{comingon for hearing, upon perusing the I!4cr torandum of Grounds} of Criminal Petitlon^{and uponhearing the arguments of Sr lruvva Shiva Kumar} Advocate for^{the Petitionerand Sri Jithender Rao Veeran; laAdditionalPublic} Prosecutor for^{the state of Telangana on behalfof the Resp:rdent Noi,land none} appeared for the^{ResPondent No.2.}

The Court made^{the following: ORDER}

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA

CRIMINA L PETITION No.1 5344 0F 2025

DATE:09-01-2026

Between

Smt. Pasunooti Meenakshi and three others

Petitio n ers

And

The State of Telangana, Rep. by the Public^prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana, Hyderabad and another

. Respondents

ORDER:

This Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioners_accused Nos.1 to 4 seeking to quash the proceedings against them in C.C.No.1896 of 2025 on the file of tearned lll Additionat Judicial lVlagistrate of First Class, Hanumakonda, registered for the offences under Sections 420, 468 and 471 read with 34 l.p.C.

Heard Sri Duvva Shiva Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioners and sri Jithender Rao Veeramaila, rearned Additionar Public Prosecutor for respondent No.1-State.

-.=,"

2

I]'I D.J ( r P No. 15344 of 2025

submil ed that^the 3. Learned^{counsel for the petitioners} present complaint^{is filed with bald allegatic r s: thatthe} allegations^{do not attract the offences underSectio I ; 420' 468 or} 471 of LP.C.^{against the petitionersherein' ttri t no forged} document is^{traced out by the prosecution; ar (hence' the} complaintitselfisdevoidofmerits.He,therefrle.prayedto quash the^{proceedings in the present C'C against1 le petitioners} herein

Learned Additional^{Public Prosecutorsubrr tted that the} petitioners are alleged^{to have created a Will Der: land brought} intoexistenceaGiftDeedtocauselosstoresp<ldentNo.2-de facto complainant.^{ln the Gift Deed presentedby t te petitioners'} the source^{of title of the donor does not get reflecr dTherefore'} prima facie case^{is made out againstthe petitionr:s hereinHe'} therefore.^{prayedto dismiss the CriminalPetition}

Perused the^record

lt is^{allegedthat the house in which the de facto} complainant is^{living with her familyexists in ttt r name of her} hcther-in-law and^{thus,her secondsister-in-lawi1 'etitionerNo l )} developed an evil^{eye and has created2 f6'r ed Will Deed}

J t]TD,J (ld. P.No.l5l44 0f2025

following the death of her^{mother-in-law and has acquired} ownership of the subject^{property and further,has executeda Gift} Deed in favour of her children^{(petitionerNos.2 to 4)' Thus, the} allegations^point out the offences^{alleged under Sections420,} 468 and 4711.P.C. against the^{petitioners herein}

The contention of the^{petitioners' counselis that the Will} Deed and the Gift Deed^{are valid documents, while the} contention of the de^{facfo complainantis that they are forged} documents. The same^{are triableissues ln the Gift Deed' it is} pointed out that the donor has inherited^{and succeeded to the} subject^property as legal^{heir of the original owner.The truth or} otherwise in the allegations^{can be culledout only after a full-} fledged trial. The strength of^{the documentaryevidence also} need to be tested^{duringthe course of trial. Hence'the} proceedings in C.C.No.1896 of 2025 cannot^{be quashed against} the^petitioners herein.^{However,in the facts and circumstances} of the case, it is deemed^{appropriateto dispensewith the} attendance of the^{petitionersbefore the trial Court.}

Accordingly, the^{Criminal Petitionis disposedof dispensing} with the attendance of^{the petitioners before the trial Court}

4

)

E'I'D,J

Crl.P \o.l i344 o1 2025

provided they are represented by a counsel befor: the trial Court

on every date of hearing and shall appear beforr the trial Court

whenever their presence is required during the cc t rse of trial

lVliscellaneous Petitions pending, if any, shir stand closed

Sc/ P. PONNA KRISHNA ;t il TANT REGISTRAR

//TRUE COPY//

SECTION OFFICER

To

The lll Additional Judrcial First Class l/agistrate, Hanumal rnda.

One CC to SRl. DUWA SHIVA KUIVIAR Advocate [OPUo

Two CCs to the Public Prosecutor High Court for the Itate of Telangana, at Hyderabad [OUT]

Two CD Copies

bu {t'

HIGH COURT

DATED: 09/01t2026

ORDER

{ES .,A
( o(.
z
()o
;t r IiB 2026
* .L
)6 PAT

CRLP.No.15344 of 2025

DISPOSING OF THE CRIMINAL PETITIOh

ro((^
&#