CRLP/6543/2024 of Pailla Gopal Reddy Vs M.A.Mateem on 20 February 2026

ORDER

This Criminal Petition is filed by the petitic -ter-accused seeking to quash the proceedings against him in () r.).No.3g6 of 2018 on the file of the learned I Additional Judicra I First Class Magistrate at Miryalaguda, registered for the olf rnces under Sections 420, 466, 467, 468 of lndian penal Co, Ie (for short 'rPC').

02. Heard IVIr.P.Prabhakar Reddy, learnecl ;ounsel for the petitioner-accused and tVlr.M.Ramachandra R,-. idy, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for State-respor Cent No.2.

Though the notice served upon the respondent No.'l , none appeared. perused the record.

03. The petitioner committed default in repayment of the loan, and the outstanding amount due was Rs.43,19,058/- as on O'l .03.2016. The Bank classified the cash credit account as a Non-Performing Asset (NPA) on 30.04.2015. On21 .11 .20'1 5, the petitioner approached the Bank and requested that no coercive steps be taken. The then Branch Manager granted some time, upon which the petitioner executed an undertaking letter dated 21 .11.2015, admitting the liability and assuring payment of Rs.25,00,000/-. ln furtherance of the same, he issued a post- dated cheque dated 26.11.2015. The petitioner also requested the Bank not to present the cheque immediately and sought release of the property belonging to his wife, assuring that the dues would be cleared. Believing the representation of the petitioner, the Bank deferred presentation of the cheque' However, when the petitioner failed to liquidate the dues, the succeeding Branch Manager presented the cheque on 25.02.2016 for clearance. The cheque was returned unpaid with the endorsement "Account Closed." Thereafter, the Bank caused issuance of a legal notice dated 14'03.2016, which was duly served on the petitioner. Subsequently, the petitioner filed a quash petition before this Court in Crl.p.No.100i: of 2017, taking a plea mainly in respect of another cheque be: rng No.410366, contending that the said cheque was never pres:.ted and that no statutory notice had been issued in relation fl.rr: r_,to. When the Bank applied for certified copies of the record I was noticed, to its surprise, that the original undertaking letter rl lted 21.11.2015 was missing from the Court file. ln its place, a sir,ilar undertaking letter dated 27.11.2015 had been filed, corr aining identical !'ecitals except that the assured amount of Rs. |5,00,000/_ was altered to Rs.25,0004. The Bank, therefore. i lteges that the petitioner, in collusion with certain section stalf fabricated and substituted the document, thereby playing fraud rt lon the Court.

04. Learned counsel for the petitioner sut) .tits that, during the pendency of the proceedings between fl^r petitioner and lndian Overseas Bank, the parties entered intr> a sompromise. Pursuant to the said setilement, the petitione laid the entire outstanding amount. Consequenfly, the compl. rt filed by the Bank was withdrawn on 26.06.2019, and the pet:ioner has been acquitted. It is further contended that, in :he course of investigation, none of the witnesses examined b 7 1he prosecution stated that the petitioner had taken away or r;ubstituted the original cheque or the undertaking retter from ti :: court record.

According to the learned counsel' the judicial file is not accessible to the petitioner, and it is the Court staff who were in custody of the record and responsible for its maintenance' Therefore' fastening criminal liability upon the petitioner' without fixing responsibility on the persons who had actual control over the file' is wholly unlustified' Learned counsel would further submit that the petitioner has been falsely implicated and that' even if the entire material collected during investigation is taken at its face value,theessentialingredientsoftheallegedoffencesarenot attracted as against the petitioner'

05. On the other hand' the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State contended there are triable issues and factual aspects to be examined by the learned trial Court and it is not a fit case to quash the proceedings against the petitioner at this juncture and the matter is to be decided after conducting full- fledged trial by the trial Court and prayed to dismiss this Criminal Petition

06. The material on record discloses that the petitioner had availed a cash credit facility from lndian Overseas Bank and committeddefaultinrepayment,pursuanttowhichtheloan account was classified as a Non-Performing Asset lt is not in dispute that the petitioner issued a post-da1t d cheque and executed an undertaking letter admitting liability .lpon dishonour of the cheque, statutory proceedings were initia't rj. lt is also an admitted fact that, during the pendency of the p :oceedings, the petitioner and the Bank entered into a comprorr r;e, pursuant to which the petitioner paid the entire outstanding dL::s. Consequent thereto, the Bank withdrew the complaint on 26 (ri.2019 and the petitioner was acquitted. Thus, the underlying I nancial dispute between the parties stands fully settled. The cr- r: of the present case revolves around the allegation that the ori 3 nal undertaking letter dated 21 .11.2015 was missing from the Ccr 11 file and that a similar undertaking letter daled 27 .11 .2015 r ,ith an altered amount was substituted, thereby constituting raud upon the Court. However, on a careful perusal of tlr charge sheet material, this Court finds that none of the prose,r ution witnesses have categorically stated that the petitioner hzrr access to the Court record or that he had physically removed : substituted the original documents from the judicial file. lt is a natter of record that Court files are maintained and handled by )ourt staff, and the petitioner, being a litigant, has no direct or ur r ::stricted access to the judicial record.

07. lt is to be noted that the petitioner had admitted his liability and there were correspondence between the petitioner_ accused and the bank and the same was formed as record, which shows that the petitioner-accused had no dishonest or fraudulent intention of cheating from the beginning or inception, therefore, the essential ingredient required to constitute the offence under Section 420 of IPC is not made out. So also, in order to prove the forgery or fabrication, the disputed documents i.e. undertakings dated 21.11 .2015 and 27.112015 are not subjected to scientific examination through forensic laboratory. The charge sheet does not disclose about any initiation of departmental inquiry against the concerned staff member who was in custody of the concerned court file. All these inconsistencies in the case of the prosecution goes to the root of the case and creates doubt over the veracity of the allegations levelled against the petitioner-accused.

08. ln the absence of any cogent material showing that the petitioner had either custody of the Court file or an opportunity to tamper with the same, the allegation of fabrication remains purely speculative. Criminal prosecution cannot be sustained on conjectures or surmises, more so when the alleged act pertains to tampering with Court records, which are ordinarily beyond the control of a{itigant. Further, even if the entire material collected -=?

during investigation is taken at its face varu. the essentiar ingredients of the alleged offences are not made :ut against the petitioner. No prima facie case is established to s .ow mens rea, overt acts, or direct involvement of the petitioner in the alleged substitution of documents. Continuation ol the criminal proceedings, in such circumstances, would amor,.rt to abuse of the process of law. The original dispute was I Llrely civil and commercial in nature, arising out of a loan tranr;; rction, and the same has already been amicably resolved betw: :rn the parties. Permitting the prosecution to continue, despite ::tilement and absence of incriminating material, would serve no I seful purpose. Therefore, the continuation of the criminal proc,-.:dings against the petitioner-accused amounts to abuse of proo ss of law and the same are liable to be quashed.

09. Accordingly, this Criminal petition is el:rwed and the proceedings against the petitioner_accused in . C.No.3g6 of 20 18 on the file of the learned IAdditional Judriat First Class Magistrate at Miryalaguda, are hereby quashed. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous applicatic,r ;, if any, shall stand closed //TRUE COPY// SD/- I ,SRINIVASA REDDY AS:; IJTANT REGISTRAR To,

The Judicial First Class Magistrate at Miryalguda SECTION OFFICER

2. The Station House Ofricer, tvliryalguda I Town Police Station, Nalgonda District. 3 Two CCs to the Public Prosecutor, High Court of Telangana at Hyderabad lourl 4 One CC to Sri P Prabhakar Reddy, Advocate [OPUC] 5 Two CD Copies GNK/PSL Y1o-,

..ii S I -zr- HIGH COURT DATED: 20t02t2026

ORDER

CRLP.No.6543 of 2024 € iR 1i .St, I Cr \)t // ALLOWING THE CRIMINAL PETITION u oo * * ,{A tr" s