Guguloth Deshya Naik v. The State Of Telangana
Court: High Court for State of Telangana
Bench: J SREENIVAS RAO
Judgment date:
Case summary
High Court for State of Telangana judgment dated 2026-03-13. Guguloth Deshya Naik v. The State Of Telangana. Read the judgment and case details on LawSphereX.
Judgment text
[ 33031 IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE J SREENIVAS RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO : 3718 0F 2026 Between: 44 yea"s', Occ. Tehsildar, Thurkapally Guguloth Deshya Naik, S/o. Bajiu, aged yadidri-Bhongir Nidamanoor tvtaidat of District (formerly worked as Tehsildar, Mandal,) R/o. H. No. 4-9-521P26, Krishna Nagar Colony, Hayathnagar' Hyderabad. ,PETITIONERIACCUSED AND 1. The State Of Telangana, Rep. By Public Prosecutor, High Court of Telangana, Hyderabad. Through station House officer Nidamanoor Police Station, Nalgonda District. 2. H. Prameela, Wo. Srinath, aged 57 years, occ. Tehsildar, Nidamanoor Mandal, Nalgonda District ...
RESPONDENT'COMPLAINANTS praying that in the circumstances stated in Petition under Section 528 of BNSS, the Memorandum of Grounds of criminal Petition, the High court may be pleased to quash the proceedings against the petitioner/Accused no 3 in cc. No. 59712024 on the file of Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Nidmanoor, Nalgonda District (cr. No. 23l2O22 on the file of Police Nidmanooo for offence under Secs. 409, 406' 420,468,471,166, 167, 120(B) R/w. Sec. 34 IPC' l. A. NO: 2OF 2026 praying Petition under section 528 of BNSS, that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased of the accused presence the s'inctuding proceeding the further or to stay all on the rile Hon'ble pleased tt; 12o24 no 3 in c ;. ;;. the Petition':r/Accused :;;;i Nidamnoor' [lagistrate' First class lui,.
,r' of Grounds the Memorandum perusing upon on for hearing' coming This Petition the arsu:::tt"J;:'::'T:"T:[::] hearing and upon Petitic'n of criminal "*ff N' 1 and ; ; Res p'nden'i I":"Li::':: "; :ru;:, i:#t*:lj no'2' for Respondent None appeared ORDER following: made the The Court HIGHCO TFO THE STATE OF TELAN GANA AT HYDERABAD RAO THE HONOURABLE SRT JUSTICE J. SREENIVAS 26 INAL E NN 718 of Da 13. 03. 2026 Between: Guguloth DeshYa Naik ... Petitioner AND The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor, ffigh Court of Telangana, Hyderabad, Through Station House Officer, District Nidarnanoor Police Station, Nalgonda and another. ... Respondents o DER: been filed by the petitioner/accused This criminal Petition has in c. c'No . 597 of 2024 on the No. 3 seeking to quash the proceedings Magistrate at Nidmanoor, Nalgonda file of the Judicial First class 409, 406' 420' offences ttnder Sections District, registered tbr the 468,47|,|66,,167and120(8)readwith34ofthe[ndianPenal Code, 1860.
2. Hee-rd Mr. A. Mahesh, leamed counser for the petitioner, and Mr. Jithender Rao Veeramalra, Iearned Additional pubric prosecutor, appearing on behalf of the respondents. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the issue raised in this criminal petition is squarely covered by the orders passed by this court in crl. p. No. 6o42 of 2025, dated 19. 06. 2025, and also :laced a copy of the said order. The petitioner is arso entitled for the very same reliefl. Hence, the continuation of the proceedinl3s against the petitioner is a clear abuse of the process of lau, 4 The said subrnission has not disputed by learned Additional Public Prosecutor. 5- Taking into consideration the. orders passed by this court in crl'P. No. (,042 of 2025, dated rg. 06. 202s, and in view of the submissio, made by the both counsel, this court finds it to be a fit case to exr:rcise jurisdiction under Section 52g of the BNSS to quash the proceedings against the petitioner herein. 6.
Accordingly, the criminal petition is ailowed and the proceedin6Ss irr e. c. No. S97 of 2024 on the fire of rhe Judiciar First Class Magistrate at Nidmanoor, Nalgonda District, against the petitioner/accused No. 3, are hereby quashed' if any, shall stand closed Miscellaneous applications, pending SD'. C. DEEPIKA ANT REGI ,,TRUE COPYI SECTION OFFICER To ct. Class Nidamnoor' Nalgonda 1 The Judicial First ' Nalgonda District 2 The Station House Officer Nidamanoor Police Statio n, at State of Telangana, 3 TwoCCstoPublicProsecutor,HighCourtforthe Hyderabad [OUT] Arigela Advocate 4 One CC to Sri. Mahesh [OPUC] 5 Two CD CoPies tqlo 6lzf in orJ. or Pr/PSL ta;k o c"? U * A. geJ CAW CYl.?. 6oHLl2-) q- HIGH COURT DATED: 1310312026 ORDER CRLP. No. 3'|18 of 202,6 1 r-rE Sr4 t o U g a 1 I'IAfl ? O? 6 a' . - t.. if;&1-{,. ; ALLOWINGI THE CRL. PETITION + 60 C ) THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA CRIMINAL PETITION No.
6O42 of 2025 ORDER: This criminal Petition is filed seeking the court to quash the proceedings against the petitioner/accused No. 4 in c. c. No. 597 0f 202+ on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate of First class, Nidmanoor, Nalgonda District, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 4O9, 406,42O,468,47L, 166, 167 and 12O(b) read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short 'IPCJ. 2. The brief facts of the case are that on L6. O2. 2022 at 14:30 hrs, a complaint in Telugu was received from respondent No. 2, Tahsildar of Nidmanoor Mandal (Letter No. 24112021 dated 16. 02. 2022), addressed to the Station House in official officer, Nidmanoor, regarding forged signatures records related to government lands in Thummadam village during 2oL6-t7. The matter was initially referred by the Revenue Divisional officer, Miryalguda (Letter No. B/ 18812022 dated 27. OL. 2O221. The complaint involves retired Tahsildar sri T.
vidya Sagar, who served in Nidmanoor from June 2OO5 sKs,J Crl. P. 0. 6042 of 2O2S to February 2009 and later in Peddavoora until his retirement on 31. O1. 2010. On O6. OL. 2O22, he was summoned by the District Vigilance Officer, Nalgonda, concerning alleged forgeries rn Assessment Certificates for lands in Thummadam village. E,ased on preliminary findings, the Vigilance Officer forwarderl the case to the Station House Oflicer, Nidmanoor, for investigation and appropriate legal action. The complaint identifies, five forged Patta Certificates issued ia 2OO7 for lands in ThurrLmadam village to: (l) Bommu Adilaxmi (Sy. No. 541, 2. 2O gt:;, Cert. No. C/ 1257 (2) Bommu Adi Laxmi l2OO7l, (Sy. No. 541, 2. 2O gts, Cert. No. C/L256l2OO7l' (3) Marthi Surende'r Reddy (Sy. No. 96L, l. O9 gts, Cert. No. Cl2344/2OO7l, (4) Marthi Swetha (Sy. No. 840, 1. 10 gts, Cert. No. C/51;65/2O07), and (5) Marthi Nirmaia (Sy. No. 1072, 1. 20 gts, Cert. No. C/3063/2007).
Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner/accused No. 4 filed the present criminal petition. 3. Fteard Sri G. Anil Kiran Kumar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner as well as Sri D. Arun Kumar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of respondent No. 1- State. Though notice served upon respondent No. 2, none appeared on her behalf. Crl. P. No. 6O42 of 2o25 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner, who served as Tahsildar of Nidamanoor from 2016- 18, had no role in the issuance of the alleged fake Patta certificates in the year 2007, which predated his tenure and that his involvement was limited to digitally signing bulk records during the Dharani data migration based on existing entries in Webland software, without biometric authentication or manual data entry, which was handled by subordinate staff.
He further submitted that there is no evidence of criminal intent, personal gain, or alteration of official records by the petitioner, nor any specific allegation linking him directly to the forgery and that the allegations under Sections 4Og, 406, 166, ar'ld 167 IPC are therefore unwarranted and lack factual basis 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner was named as accused No. 4 much later, allegedly due to pressure from influential persons. The petitioner has no prior criminal record and has been subjected to departmental inquiry. Further, the case suffers from an unexplained delay of nearly 15 years from the date of the alleged acts. Therefore, he prayed the court to quash the Crl. P. No. 6o42 of proceedines against the petitioner by allowing this criminal petition 6. On r:he other hand, Iearned Additional Public Prosecutor opposed t.
ae submissions made by the learned counsel for petitioner stating that the petitioner, while serving Tahsildar, uploaded entries into the Dharani Portal without verifying the authenticity of supporting documents. alleged ttrat this lapse enabled accused Nos. 6 to 9 to validate forged A:;signment Patta Certificates claimed to have issued i::r 2OO7. A report of the District Collector 08. 06. 2022 highlighted that these certificates differed significarrtly from genuine certificates issued under the Phase Assignment Programme, both in format and security features Based on this, responsibility was fixed on specific officials, including Tahsildars A-3 to A-5. Though no role was attributed to the petitioner in issuing certificates, it was argued that his failure to verify documents contributed to the irregularity. Therefore, at stage, cuashing of proceedings against the petitioner does arise arrd the same requires trial. Hence, he prayed the to dismiss the criminal petition. sKs,J Crl. P.
t{o. 6O42 of 2o25 7. Upon hearing the submissions of both the learned counsel and on careful perusal of the material on record, it is evident that the petitioner is arrayed as accused No. 4 and the sole allegation against the petitioner is that, while serving as Tahsildar, he uploaded certain land records related to accused No. 9 into the Dharani Portal without verifying their genuineness. The record indicates that the District Collector, Nalgonda, conducted an enquiry and concluded that the Assignment Patta Certificates produced by Accused Nos. 6 to 9 were not genuine. Consequently, the Pattadar passbooks and revenue entries pertaining to A-6 and A-8 were cancelled. However, the documents relating to A-9 have not been cancelled thus far due to the pendency of a writ petition filed by A-9 before this Court. Therefore, as on date, the documents in question stand unrevoked in the official records. 8.
It is further noted that the charge sheet primarily attributes culpability to accused Nos. 6 to 9, with substantial allegations also made against Accused No. 3, who is stated to have been involved in other irregularities and is facing trial in Crime No. ll of 2Ot7. In contrast, there are no specific or direct allegations indicating that the petitioner had knowledge sKs,J Crl. P. No. 6O42 of 2O2S of the fo;:ged nature of accused No. 9,s documents or that he was complicit in their creation. The petitioner claims to have relied on physicar records that were available at the time of data migration into the Dharani portal and contends that his role was limited to uploading pre-existing entries. Notably, there is no express statutory requirement brought to the notice of this court mandating an independent enquiry by the Tahsildar- before such digital integration. 9. In light of these facts, the invocation of Sections 409, 406, 166, and L6Z IpC against the petitioner appears unfoundt:d.
There are no alregations of dishonest intention, misappr. priation, falsification, or abuse. of official position that wo,ld attract the ingredients of these offences. The proceedi,gs against the petitioner rest sorely on his procedural rore in updating records that had been in existence for over rr decade and not on any act of forgery or fraudulent certification. Hence, this court is of the opinion that continuation of criminal proceedings against the petitioner amounts to an abuse of the process of raw. Therefore, the proceedi'gs against the petitioner are riable to be quashed. I Crl. P. No. 6O42 of 2o. 25 10. Accordingly, this Criminal Petition is allowed and the proceedings against the petitioner in C. C. No. 597 of 2024 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Nidmanoor, Nalgonda District , are hereby quashed. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. JUSTICE K. SUJANA Date: 19. 06. 2025 SAI
Source: Supreme Court eSCR. Dataset: Dattam Labs, CC BY 4.0. Text extracted automatically; compare with the source PDF for layout and accuracy.