Telangana High Court
Madhavaneni Venkateshwar Rao vs The State Of Telangana on 26 March, 2026
Author: Juvvadi Sridevi
Bench: Juvvadi Sridevi
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
AT HYDERABAD
THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE JUVVADI SRIDEVI
CRIMINAL PETITION Nos.7809 and 6850 of 2024
26 MARCH, 2026
Between:
Yellu Vijay Bhasker Reddy and another ... Petitioners
AND
The State of Telangana
Through SHO,
Siddipet I Town Police Station,
Siddipet District,
rep. by Public Prosecutor,
High Court for the State of Telangana,
High Court, Hyderabad and another ...Respondents
: COMMON ORDER :
These Criminal Petitions are filed under Section 482 of
Cr.P.C. by the petitioners-accused Nos.1 and 2, seeking to quash the
proceedings against them in C.C.No.868 of 2024 pending on the file of
the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge-cum-Judicial Magistrate of
First Class at Siddipet (for short ‘trial Court’), registered for the
offences under Sections 417, 420, 468 and 120-B of the Indian Penal
Code (for short ‘IPC‘).
2. Since both the criminal petitions are arising out of
C.C.No.868 of 2024, they are heard together and disposed of by way
of this common order.
2
3. Heard Mr. P.Raja Sripathi Rao, learned Senior Counsel
representing Mr. B.Arjun Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner in
Crl.P.No.7809 of 2024; Mr. K.Rajashekar, learned counsel for the
petitioner in Crl.P.No.6850 of 2024 and Mr. P.Vamsheedhar Reddy,
learned counsel for respondent No.2-de facto complainant and
Mr. M.Ramachandra Reddy, learned Additional Public Prosecutor
appearing for respondent No.1-State.
4. Brief facts of the case:
4.1. The petitioner-accused No.1 is the husband of the de facto
complainant. Due to matrimonial disputes, the petitioner-accused No.1
filed F.C.O.P.No.155 of 2010 before the Family Court at
Secunderabad, seeking dissolution of marriage. Thereafter, the
de facto complainant filed Tr.C.M.P.No.503 of 2010 through petitioner-
accused No.2 before this Court seeking transfer of the said F.C.O.P. to
the Family Court at Siddipet. This Court, by order dated 29.09.2010,
granted stay of all further proceedings in the said F.C.O.P.
Subsequently, the petitioner-accused No.1 did not pursue the said
F.C.O.P., for the reasons best known to him and the same was
dismissed as not pressed on 21.04.2011. In view thereof, Tr.C.M.P
No.503 of 2010 was also closed.
3
4.2. Thereafter, on 27.06.2022, the de facto complainant
received summons in O.S.No.299 of 2022 from the Court of the
Principal Junior Civil Judge at Siddipet, through which she came to
know about the whereabouts of petitioner-accused No.1 and her
children. On reading of the plaint averments, the de facto complainant
was shocked to know that her daughter Yellu Pranavi, at the behest of
petitioner-accused No.1, had instituted a suit for partition against her
father, brother, two sisters and herself, claiming 1/15th share in the self
acquired properties of her father and brother and had also described
the de facto complainant as a person of unsound mind. Her father and
brother appeared before the said Court on the first hearing of the civil
suit and sought time to file vakalat and counter.
4.3. Upon further enquiry made by her brother namely
Mr. A. Srinivas Reddy, they came to know on 11.08.2022 that
petitioner-accused No.1, in criminal conspiracy with petitioner-accused
No.2, had filed M.C.No.14 of 2011 before the Court of Additional
Judicial First Class Magistrate at Siddipet, seeking maintenance, by
forging the signatures of the de facto complainant on the vakalat and
petitions. It is the case of the de facto complainant that the signature
therein is not hers and the case was filed without her knowledge.
Subsequently, petitioners-accused Nos.1 and 2 allowed the said
4
maintenance case to be dismissed for default on 01.10.2012. As the
de facto complainant was in rehabilitation centre since May, 2022, she
lodged the present complaint on 15.09.2022.
4.4. Basing on the said complaint, the Investigation Officer
registered a case in Crime No.342 of 2022 and took up investigation.
During the course of investigation, the Investigation Officer recorded
the statements of the witnesses and collected relevant documents. He
also obtained expert opinion, wherein it was opined that the red
enclosed signatures marked as S1 to S32 did not tally with questioned
signatures i.e., Q1 to Q3.
4.5. After completion of the investigation, the Investigation Officer
filed a charge sheet before the trial Court, the same was taken
cognizance and numbered as C.C.No.868 of 2024 for the aforesaid
offences.
5. Following are the submissions of learned Senior
Counsel for the petitioners:
5.1. The petitioners are innocent and have been falsely
implicated in the case. They are in no way concerned with the offences
alleged. As a counterblast to O.S.No.299 of 2022 filed by the daughter
of petitioner-accused No.1 against the de facto complainant and her
5family members, the present complaint was lodged by the de facto
complainant against the petitioners-accused Nos.1 and 2. Similarly, as
a counterblast to F.C.O.P.No.155 of 2010 filed by petitioner-accused
No.1, the de facto complainant filed M.C.No.14 of 2011, against him
claiming maintenance. While filing a maintenance case, the
appearance of the concerned party is mandatory prior to the
registration of the case. In the present case, it is highly questionable
as to how the petitioner-accused No.1 was able to file the case by
forging the signatures of the de facto complainant without the
mandatory appearance and verification before the Court.
5.2. Though the expert opinion states that the red enclosed
signatures marked as S1 to S32 did not tally with the questioned
signatures marked as Q1 to Q3, the very basis of such comparison is
legally untenable.
5.3. The questioned signatures i.e., the signatures on the vakalat
and petition in M.C.No.14 of 2011 dated 17.02.2011, were compared
with the signatures found on the certified copies of sale deeds
pertaining to the year 2022, an Identity Card of Government College,
Siddipet, pertaining to the academic years 1991-92 and 1992-93 and a
PAN card (year not mentioned). Thus, there is a considerable time
gap between the two sets of signatures. Furthermore, the comparison
6of questioned signatures with those found on certified copies of sale
deeds is impermissible in law and the same ought to have been
compared only with contemporary original signatures. The PAN card
does not contain the original signature.
5.4. In support of his contention, learned Senior Counsel relied
on the judgment of the erstwhile High Court of Judicature, Andhra
Pradesh at Hyderabad in Smt. Renu Devi Kedia v. Smt. Seetha
Devi 1 and drawn attention of this Court to paragraph No.5, wherein, it
was held as follows:
“5. Coming to the facts on hand, the disputed signatures
are of the year 1995 and whereas the specimen signatures
are of the year 2004, there is a gap of nearly nine years
between the two signatures. So far as signatures of the
petitioners appearing in written statement etc., there is every
possibility of his disguising his style of signature so as to make
them dissimilar with the disputed signatures. Since there are
no contemporaneous signatures for comparison with the
disputed signatures, there is no useful purpose in sending the
suit documents to an expert for his opinion. The trial Court
considered the matter in right perspective and dismissed the
application. I do not see any valid ground to interfere with the
impugned order.”
5.5. Learned Senior Counsel further relied on the judgment of
this Court in C.Nagarathanamma v. V.Parameswari 2, wherein, at
paragraph Nos.12 to 14, it was held as follows:
“12. On the other hand, the learned Counsel for the
respondent/plaintiff argued that the suit is not barred by
limitation as it was filed within three years from the date of
1
2004 (3) A.P.L.J. 203 (HC)
2
2016 SCC OnLine Hyderabad 771
7Ex.A2 endorsement and the attester of Ex.A2 i.e., PW2 clearly
held that the defendant executed Ex.A2 and that after
considering the evidence on record, the first appellate Court
rightly allowed the appeal filed by the plaintiff and relied upon
the case law reported in Sallepalli Narasimha Reddy v.
Yerram Pedda Subba Reddy, (2014) 2 ALD 195, wherein it is
held at Para 19 as follows:
“The rule of prudence requires the Court to send the
admitted and contemporary signatures of the person
to the expert to compare the same with his disputed
signatures on the document According to
Cambridge Advanced Learner’s Dictionary
“Contemporary” means belonging to the same or a
stated period in the past. It is needless to say that
admitted signatures means the signatures on the
documents maintained by any authority in course of
its business such as signatures on a passport,
income tax returns, bank passbook or registered
sale deed.”
13. The learned Counsel also relied upon the case law
reported in S. Gopal Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh,
(1996) 4 SCC 596 : (1996) 2 ALD (Cri) 926 (S.C.) : AIR 1996
SC 2184, wherein it is held at Para 27 as follows:
“27. Thus, the evidence of PW3, is not definite and
cannot be said to be of a clinching nature to connect
the appellant with the disputed letters. The evidence
of an expert is a rather weak type of evidence and
the Courts do not generally consider it as offering
‘conclusive’ proof and, therefore safe to rely upon
the same without seeking independent and reliable
corroboration.”
14. Further, he also relied upon a case law reported in
Vandavasi Karthikeya alias Krishna Murthy v. S. Kamalamma,
AIR 1994 AP 102, wherein it is held as follows:
“The science of handwriting is not an exact science
unlike the science of fingerprints. Even experts tend
to commit errors in giving their opinions on the
genuineness of the signatures and handwriting.
Even in genuine writing, at times, the pen hesitates
or even stops especially when the author is under
great physical or mental strain. Sometimes, it would
be difficult for an expert to examine even the
genuineness of different writings, each having its
own individuality, but all by the same author. It
requires intelligent comparison to differentiate the
8genuine signature from the forged one. Great care
and caution should be exercised especially when
the Court is not assisted by the evidence of an
expert in determining the genuineness of a
signature of handwriting. Even while calling experts,
it is now admitted by all authorities that if one cannot
get a competent man, it is better not to adduce any
expert evidence at all. (Para 29)”
5.6. Learned Senior Counsel also relied on the judgment of the
erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh in T.Lakshmi v. State of
Andhra Pradesh 3 and drawn attention of this Court to paragraph
Nos.19 and 20, wherein, it was held as follows:
“19. A similar question came up before this Court in
P. Kusuma Kumari v. State of Andhra Pradesh [(2015) 1 ALD
(Cri.) 995] wherein this Court held that disputed signature is
required to be referred to the expert along with admitted
signatures of the party, the Court is bound to refer the
document by exercising power under Section 73.
20. Section 45 of the Act enables the Court to obtain the
opinion of an expert on various aspects, including the one
relating to the comparison of disputed signatures. An expert
would be in a position to render his opinion, only when the
original of the document containing the disputed signature is
forwarded to him. Further, there can be effective comparison
and verification of the signatures, if only another document
containing the undisputed signatures of the contemporary
period are made available to the expert. The opinion of a hand
writing expert involves the analysis of the slant, which a
person uses in the matter of putting his signature, and in some
cases, the point of time, at which it may have been
subscribed. These analyses would become possible only
vis-a-vis an original signature; and the signature mark : on a
Xerox copy of a document can never constitute the basis.
(vide Bheri Nageswara Rao v. Mavuri Veerabhadra Rao
[(2006) 4 ALD 295]).”
5.7. The de facto complainant is suffering from Schizophrenia, a
severe mental disorder and has been undergoing continuous medical
3
2021 SCC OnLine AP 3670
9
treatment since 2009. She could not respond properly due to her
deteriorated health condition and was speaking irrelevantly. All the
witnesses, including the de facto complainant and her family members,
in their statements recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C., have
admitted that she has been mentally disturbed for a considerable
period of time.
5.8. Further, the brother of the de facto complainant, along with
another person, has filed W.P.No.29298 of 2023 before this Court
questioning the action of the respondents-Police therein in not
recording their statements under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. and seeking a
direction to consider the medical certificates, dated 19.09.2023,
22.09.2023 and 30.09.2023 as well as the expert opinion report, dated
03.08.2023 issued by the Telangana State Forensic Science
Laboratory, while disposing of their representation dated 04.10.2023.
5.9. In the said writ petition, the petitioners therein themselves
have clearly admitted that the mental condition of the de facto
complainant is not proper and she is not in a position to visit the Police
Station for the purpose of giving her further statement.
5.10. The de facto complainant addressed a letter, dated
06.01.2026 to the Commissioner of Police, Siddipet Commissionerate,
10
Siddipet District, alleging that an incomplete charge sheet was filed in
C.C.No.868 of 2024 without proper application of mind by the
Investigation Officer and requested that further inquiry and further
investigation be conducted and that an additional charge sheet be
filed. In the said letter, under major defects, it is specifically mentioned
that the impersonator was not identified and was not arrayed as an
accused in the charge sheet, which itself establishes that the
petitioners herein are not responsible for the alleged offences.
Furthermore, the de facto complainant has affixed her thumb
impression instead of her signature on the said letter, which shows that
she is mentally unstable.
5.11. The learned Magistrate has taken cognizance against the
petitioners, without application of mind into the material on record and
assigning any valid reasons.
5.12. The petitioner-accused No.1 has been implicated in the
present case by the de facto complainant because of the pending
disputes between the parties. The de facto complainant had herself
filed Tr.C.M.P.No.503 of 2010 before this Court and M.C.No.14 of
2011 before the trial Court through the petitioner-accused No.2. The
petitioner-accused No.2 acted on the instructions of the de facto
complainant in his professional capacity as an Advocate and has no
11
involvement whatsoever in the personal or family affairs of petitioner-
accused No.1 and the de facto complainant.
5.13. Neither the complaint nor the charge sheet discloses any
specific allegations against the petitioners, even if the allegations are
taken on their face value and the ingredients of the offences under
Sections 417, 420, 468 and 120-B of IPC are not made out. Hence,
learned Senior Counsel prayed to quash the proceedings against the
petitioners.
6. Following are the submissions of learned counsel
appearing for respondent No.2-de facto complainant:
6.1. The petitioner-accused No.1, in criminal conspiracy with
petitioner-accused No.2, forged the signatures of the de facto
complainant and fraudulently filed M.C.No.14 of 2011, which was
ultimately dismissed for default. The signatures on the vakalat and the
petition filed in the said M.C. were not those of the de facto
complainant, rather, they were forged by petitioner-accused No.1 and
filed through petitioner-accused No.2. Even according to the FSL
report, the signatures were not tallied, which clearly establishes the
allegation of forgery. Even on a bare perusal, the signatures of the
12de facto complainant were not tallying and the discrepancy is apparent
even to the naked eye.
6.2. When this Court had granted stay of all further proceedings
in F.C.O.P.No.155 of 2010 in Tr.C.M.P.No.503 of 2010 filed before this
Court, it is not known as to how the said F.C.O.P. was closed by the
trial Court. Such closure of the proceedings during the subsistence of
the stay order raises serious questions about the legality of the action
taken.
6.3. The signatures were sent for expert opinion based on a
letter, dated 15.07.2023 addressed by LW-8/Sub-Inspector of Police,
to the trial Court, which is impermissible in law.
6.4. With regard to the contention of the learned Senior Counsel
appearing for the petitioners that cognizance was taken by the learned
Magistrate in a mechanical manner without non-application of mind, it
was submitted by the learned counsel for respondent No.2-de facto
complainant that cognizance is to be taken against the offence, but not
against the offenders.
6.5. In support of his contention, learned counsel relied on the
judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Chief Enforcement
13Officer v. Videocon International Limited 4 and Prasad Shrikant
Purohit v. State of Maharashtra and another 5, wherein, it was held
that, in criminal law, the expression ‘cognizance’ refers to an offence
and not to the offender, it does not require any formal action and as
soon as the Magistrate applies his judicial mind to the suspected
commission of the offence, cognizance takes place.
6.6. He also relied on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme
Court in Raghubans Dubey v. State of Bihar 6, wherein, it was held
that when a Magistrate takes cognizance on a police report, he takes
cognizance of the offence and not merely of the particular persons
named in the charge sheet. Therefore, the Magistrate is entitled to
summon additional accused against whom he considers that there is
sufficient evidence, after perusal of the statements recorded by the
Police under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. and the other documents referred
to in Section 173 of Cr.P.C., even without examination of witnesses in
the Court.
6.7. Specific allegations are levelled against the petitioners and
the ingredients of the offences alleged against them are made out.
The truth or otherwise of the allegations levelled against the petitioners
4
(2008) 2 SCC 492
5
2015 (7) SCC 440
6
1967 AIR Supreme Court 1167
14
can only be known after conducting full-fledged trial before the trial
Court. Hence, he prayed to dismiss the petitions.
7. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the
State, contended that specific allegations are levelled against the
petitioners, which is a subject matter of trial. Hence, he prayed to
dismiss the petitions.
8. Analysis, Conclusion and Findings:
8.1. It is not in dispute that the petitioner-accused No.1 is the
husband of the de facto complainant and matrimonial disputes arose
between them. In that background, the petitioner-accused No.1 filed
F.C.O.P.No.155 of 2010 before the Family Court at Secunderabad
seeking dissolution of marriage. The de facto complainant thereafter
filed Tr.C.M.P.No.503 of 2010 before this Court seeking transfer of the
said proceedings to the Family Court at Siddipet. This Court, by order,
dated 29.09.2010, granted stay of all further proceedings in the said
F.C.O.P. Subsequently, the petitioner-accused No.1 did not pursue
the said proceedings and the same was dismissed as not pressed on
21.04.2011, as a result of which Tr.C.M.P.No.503 of 2010 was also
closed.
15
8.2. The allegations in the present complaint, dated 15.09.2022
relates to the filing of M.C.No.14 of 2011 before the Court of the
Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate at Siddipet, by petitioner-
accused No.1, in criminal conspiracy with petitioner-accused No.2, by
forging the signatures of the de facto complainant on the vakalat and
the petitions and intentionally allowing the said case to be dismissed
for default on 01.10.2012. It is the case of the de facto complainant
that she became aware of these facts only on 11.08.2022, upon
making enquiries, after receiving the summons in O.S.No.299 of 2022.
8.3. The present complaint was lodged on 15.09.2022 i.e., nearly
a decade after the proceedings in M.C. had concluded. The delay in
lodging the complaint was explained on the ground that the de facto
complainant became aware of the same for the first time on
11.08.2022 and as she is in a rehabilitation centre since May, 2022,
she was unable to act earlier.
8.4. During the course of investigation, the red enclosed
signatures marked as S1 to S32 were sent for comparison with the
questioned signatures marked as Q1 to Q3, but they were not tallied.
The questioned signatures pertaining to the year 2011 were compared
with the standard signatures of the years 1991-92, 1992-93, 2022 and
2023 i.e., there is a considerable gap between the two sets of
16
signatures. Furthermore, the signatures on the certified copies of the
sale deeds were compared with the questioned signatures. It is well
settled law that the signatures on certified copies of the documents
cannot be compared with questioned signatures, as the process
requires examination of the originals to observe the natural strokes,
pressure and other distinctive features that may not be faithfully
reproduced in certified copies. In the absence of comparison with
contemporaneous signatures, the expert opinion loses its evidentiary
value and cannot be relied up. Consequently, the expert opinion is
liable to be discarded. The judgments relied upon by the learned
counsel for the petitioner are squarely applicable to the facts of the
present case.
8.5. Even the questioned signatures, dated 17.02.2011 i.e., Q1 to
Q3 were not compared with the signatures, dated 23.09.2010 affixed
by the de facto complainant on the affidavit of Tr.C.M.P.No.503 of
2010.
8.6. The de facto complainant addressed a letter, dated
06.01.2026 to the Commissioner of Police, Siddipet Commissionerate,
Siddipet, alleging certain defects in the charge sheet of C.C.No.868 of
2024. Specifically, it is contended that the impersonator has not been
identified and that such person has not been included as an accused.
17
Such omissions, as pointed out by the de facto complainant herself,
cast a serious doubt on the involvement of the petitioners in the
alleged offences. In the said letter, the de facto complainant affixed her
thumb impression instead of a signature. Even in the vakalats, dated
02.01.2025 and 27.12.2025 filed by the learned counsel for respondent
No.2-de facto complainant in the present Criminal Petitions, the
de facto complainant has affixed her thumb impressions instead of
signatures.
8.7. The medical records, along with the statements of the
witnesses recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C., including the
statement of the de facto complainant and her family members and the
affidavit filed in W.P.No.29298 of 2023, confirm that she has been
suffering from Schizophrenia and has been mentally unstable since
2009. Due to the chronic nature of her mental illness, there has been
deterioration in her personality, including self-smiling and self-talking,
along with difficulties in communication and occasional irrelevant
speech. Furthermore, the affixing of thumb impressions by the
de facto complainant indicates her mental incapacity and deterioration
in her health condition. In such circumstances, it is highly improbable
to believe that the petitioners-accused Nos.1 and 2 could have forged
the signatures of the de facto complainant, particularly in the light of
18
her longstanding mental condition and the inordinate delay in lodging
the complaint.
8.8. It is to be noted that the de facto complainant had filed
Tr.C.M.P.No.503 of 2010 through the petitioner-accused No.2, but
denied filing of M.C.No.14 of 2011 through him, which itself creates a
serious suspicion regarding the manner in which the said M.C. was
filed.
8.9. Except the statements of witnesses, who are the family
members and family friends of the de facto complainant, no
independent witness was examined to support the case of the
prosecution.
8.10. Furthermore, the dispute between the parties appears to
have its genesis in long-standing matrimonial and family discord and
the allegations raised in the present complaint are closely intertwined
with civil and family disputes pending among the parties.
8.11. Additionally, the petitioner-accused No.2 is an Advocate,
who had acted upon the instructions of the de facto complainant. His
involvement was limited to the exercise of his professional functions
and there is no evidence to suggest that he acted independently or
19
outside the scope of the instructions given to him by the de facto
complainant.
8.12. In view of the above, this Court is of the considered opinion
that there are no specific allegations against the petitioners with regard
to the offences of criminal conspiracy, forgery or cheating by
impersonation. The essential ingredients of the said offences are not
made out and the present complaint appears to have been maliciously
instituted by the de facto complainant with an ulterior motive, aimed at
wreaking vengeance on petitioner-accused No.1 and to spite him, due
to private and personal grudge, in view of disputes pending between
the parties. In such circumstances, the present case squarely falls
within parameter No.7 of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme
Court in the judgment of the State of Haryana and others v.
CH.Bhajan Lal and others 7, which is as follows:
“The following categories of cases can be stated by way of
illustration wherein the extraordinary power under Article 226 or
the inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. can be
exercised by the High Court either to prevent abuse of the
process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice,
though it may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly
defined and sufficiently channelised and inflexible guidelines or
rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of
cases wherein such power should be exercised:
(1) Where the allegations made in the First Information Report
or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and
accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any
offence or make out a case against the accused;
7
1992 SCC (Cri) 426
20
(2) Where the allegations in the First Information Report and
other materials, if any, accompanying the F.I.R. do not disclose
a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police
officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an
order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the
Code;
(3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or
complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do
not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a
case against the accused;
(4) Where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a
cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable
offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without
an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2)
of the Code;
(5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so
absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no
prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is
sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused;
(6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the
provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a
criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and
continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific
provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing
efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party;
(7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with
mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously
instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance
on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private
and personal grudge.”
8.13. Apart from that, it is another contention of the learned
counsel for the petitioners that cognizance was taken against the
petitioners without application of mind by the learned Magistrate and
without assigning any valid or cogent reasons for taking such
cognizance. On the other hand, it is the contention of the learned
counsel appearing for respondent No.2-de facto complainant that
21
cognizance is to be taken against an offence, not specifically against
the offender. Even so, the law requires that valid and cogent reasons
have to be assigned by the learned Magistrate, while taking
cognizance of an offence. In the present case, while taking
cognizance, no such reasons have been assigned by the learned
Magistrate, contrary to the settled principle of law.
8.14. The mental condition of the de facto complainant, coupled
with the delayed lodging of the complaint and the absence of
contemporaneous evidence, severely undermines the credibility and
voluntariness of the complaint. Permitting the criminal proceedings to
continue in such circumstances, would not serve the ends of justice
and would amount to an abuse of the process of law.
9. Accordingly, both the Criminal Petitions are allowed,
quashing the proceedings against the petitioners-accused Nos.1 and 2
in C.C.No.868 of 2024 pending on the file of the learned Principal
Junior Civil Judge-cum-Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Siddipet.
Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand
closed.
____________________
JUVVADI SRIDEVI, J
Date: 26.03.2026
rev
[ad_1]
Source link
