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.
34.2. 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 5 family 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 6 of 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 7 Ex.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 8 genuine 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 12 de 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 13 Officer 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