Telangana High Court
Ganta Raju And 2 Others vs The State Of Telangana And Another on 12 March, 2025
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
CRIMINAL PETITION No.5657 OF 2021
O R D E R:
This Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioners, seeking
to quash proceedings in C.C.No.3701 of 2020, on the file of V
Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, at Warangal.
2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and
Sri M.Vivekananda Reddy, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor
for the respondent - State. Perused the record.
3. The 2nd respondent filed a complaint on 04.07.2019
against the 1st petitioner stating that he has forged his
signature on a promissory note as if 2nd respondent had
obtained a loan of Rs.3,00,000/- on 18.10.2008 from 1st
petitioner, at Hasanparthy. A false document was filed and ex-
parte order was obtained and later, an execution petition to
attach the residential house of 2nd respondent, at Kazipet was
filed. The entire proceedings were not known to the 2nd
respondent. Having come to know that he had suffered an ex-
parte order, the 2nd respondent filed a written statement, along
with a petition under Order IX Rule 13 of CPC to set aside the
ex-parte order on 19.07.2016. However, the petition was
returned for the reason of typographical errors. Thereafter, the
petition was re-submitted with a delay of 487 days. The ground
taken before the Court for the delay was that the counsel on
record did not inform the 2nd respondent about the proceedings.
Accordingly, the delay petition was dismissed.
4. The 2nd respondent approached this Court by filing
C.R.P.No.1586 of 2019, and this Court, by order dated
02.01.2020, dismissed the petition filed by the 2nd respondent
against the orders of the trial Court refusing to condone the
delay of 487 days.
5. Meanwhile, a criminal complaint was filed on 04.07.2019.
The Police investigated the case and filed a charge sheet mainly
on the basis of the report of Truth Labs that the writings found
on the promissory note were not those of the 2nd respondent.
6. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would
submit that the case is purely civil in nature. Only to force the
petitioners to settle the disputes in the Civil Court, a criminal
complaint was filed. The 2nd respondent had knowledge about
the ex-parte decree in July, 2016 itself. However, after the Civil
Court refused to entertain the petition to set aside the ex-parte
order, a criminal complaint was filed. Further, the basis for the
filing the charge sheet is the Forensic Science Laboratory/Truth
Labs report, showing that the promissory note was fabricated.
However, the original promissory note was not sent to the FSL,
and only a photocopy was sent. The original promissory note
was filed before the Civil Court, which is marked as Ex.A-1.
7. Learned counsel further submits that none of the
ingredients of Section 420 of IPC are made out. He relied on
the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in
Suryalakshmi Cotton Mills Ltd. v. Rajvir Industries Ltd. 1
and Vesa Holdings (P) Ltd v. State of Kerala 2.
8. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the
2nd respondent would submit that the 2nd respondent was not
aware of the proceedings. Once he came to know about the
proceedings, he took steps to prosecute the civil case and also
filed a criminal complaint. The very allegation that the
promissory note is fabricated was found to be correct during
the investigation and accordingly, the charge sheet was filed.
(2008) 13 SCC 678
(2015) 8 SCC 293
9. He relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court
in Central Bureau of Investigation vs. Aryan Singh ETC 3,
wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that, the High Court,
while exercising powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C., is not
required to conduct a mini trial to decide the correctness or
otherwise of the allegations made against the accused.
10. Learned counsel further submits that the petition under
Section 47 of CPC was filed before the trial Court and it is now
pending trial. The relevant witnesses were also examined in the
said proceedings. The basis for the 2nd respondent to lodge a
complaint is that the promissory note was fabricated. In fact,
the proceedings are now ongoing, before the trial Court, and the
genuineness of the promissory note will be decided by the trial
Court.
11. Insofar as the petitioner Nos.2 and 3 are concerned, they
were the signatories to the promissory note. The signatories to
a promissory note cannot be made as co-conspirators, since
there are no allegations leveled against A-2 and A-3, that they
conspire to cheat 2nd respondent. It is the specific case that the
promissory note was fabricated by A-1. Further, there are no
2023 Lawsuit (SC) 344
allegations of any kind of inducement by the 2nd and 3rd
petitioners or that they have fabricated the documents. The
witnesses to the promissory note cannot be mulcted with
criminal liability, either for cheating or for the fabrication of the
said document in the present circumstances of the case.
12. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is partly allowed,
quashing the proceedings against the petitioner Nos.2 and 3.
All the defenses raised by A-1 can be agitated in the Court
below. Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand
closed.
_________________
K.SURENDER, J
Date: 12.03.2025
dv
