Telangana High Court
Mr. Bollineni Krishnaiah vs The State Of Telangana on 24 September, 2025
Author: K. Lakshman
Bench: K. Lakshman
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN
WRIT PETITION No.2747 OF 2025
ORDER:
Heard Sri Pattabhi Vemulapati, learned Senior Counsel, representing Sri. L. Prasad Rao learned counsel for the Petitioners, Sri G. Aniketh Reddy, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home, and Sri. Immineni Rama Rao learned Counsel for 4th Respondent.
2. This writ petition is filed to declare the action of 3rd respondent in adding Sections 467, 468 and 471 of IPC in Crime No. 17 of 2024 of Raidurgam Police Station against the petitioners/A.1 to A.3 as illegal and to quash the proceedings with regard to the additional sections in the aforesaid crime. .
3. This is third round of litigation. As per the report dated 08.01.2024 submitted by 4th respondent, 3rd respondent has registered a case in Cr.No.17 of 2024 against the petitioners initially for the offences punishable under Sections 417, 420 and 506 read with 34 of IPC.
4. The petitioners filed a petition vide Crl.P.No.616 of 2024 under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. to quash the proceedings in Cr.No.17 of 2024 pending on the file of 3rd respondent Police Station. 1 2
5. 4th respondent had filed a writ petition vide W.P.No.1875 of 2024 to declare the action of 3rd respondent in not conducting investigation in effective and fair manner in the said Cr.No.17 of 2024 as illegal. She also sought a direction to police to provide protection to her and her minor daughter and also constitute a Special Investigation Team (SIT) or entrust the case to the CB-CID etc.
6. Vide common order dated 24.06.2024, this Court dismissed the said Crl.P.No.616 of 2024 and disposed of W.P.No.1875 of 2024 directing the Investigating Officer in the subject crime to conduct investigation in a fair and transparent manner and to consider certain factual aspects while conducting investigation.
7. On the request made by 4th respondent, 2nd respondent - The Commissioner of Police, transferred the investigation of the said crime to the Station House Officer, Central Crime Station, Detective Department, Hyderabad, from respondent No.3 Police Station i.e. Police Station, Raidurg, Cyberabad Commissionerate.
8. The petitioners filed a writ petition vide W.P.No.27505 of 2024 challenging the said transfer of investigation of the subject crime from 5th respondent therein/the Station House Officer, Raidurgam 3 Police Station, Hyderabad to 4th respondent therein/the Station House Officer, Central Crime Station, Hyderabad.
9. Vide order dated 23.12.2024, this Court disposed of W.P.No.27505 of 2024 setting aside the proceeding dated 29.08.2024 of 5th respondent therein - the SHO, Raidurgam Police Station, proceeding dated 10.09.2024 of 2nd respondent - the Commissioner of Police, Cyberabad therein and proceedings dated 13.09.2024 of 3rd respondent therein - the Commissioner of Police, Hyderabad. This Court directed respondent Nos.3 and 4 therein to transfer the file in Cr.No.17 of 2024 (new Cr.No.208 of 2024) to Respondent No.5 for further investigation. This Court also granted liberty to respondent No.5 therein to change the Investigating Officer in the subject crime and directed the Investigating Officer to conduct investigation strictly in accordance with law. This Court further directed 2nd respondent to supervise the investigation in the said crime. Both the Petitioners and Respondent No.4 herein were directed to cooperate with the Investigating Officer by furnishing information and documents as sought by him in concluding the investigation as expeditiously as possible.
4
10. The Investigating Officer in the subject crime pending on the file of 3rd respondent herein i.e. SHO of Raidurg Police Station filed a memo dated 29.08.2024 before the learned jurisdictional Magistrate adding sections of law i.e. 467, 468 and 471 of IPC to the existing Sections i.e. 417, 420 and 506 of IPC in the said crime.
11. Challenging the said action of Investigating Officer in adding the aforesaid sections in Cr.No.17 of 2024, the petitioners filed the present writ petition contending as follows:-
i. The Investigating Officer filed the said memo without application of mind.
ii. He has filed the said memo at the instance of 4th respondent.
iii. The contents of the said memo lacks the ingredients of Sections 467, 468 and 471 of IPC.
iv. There is delay in lodging the complaint and also filing the said memo.
v. The said memo is contrary to the common order dated 24.06.2024 in Crl.P.No.616 of 2024 and W.P.No.1875 of 2024.
The purpose of insertion of the said Sections as additional 5 Sections is not based on investigation nor it is based on any material on record.
vi. After adding the aforesaid Sections under the guise of investigation, the Investigating Officer tried to apprehend the petitioners herein.
12. Respondents opposed this petition contending as follows:-
i. The Investigating Officer conducted investigation in terms of common order dated 24.06.2024 in Crl.P.No.616 of 2024 and W.P.No.1875 of 2024, more particularly, the aspects mentioned by this Court in paragraph No.13 of the order.
ii. During the course of investigation, the Investigating Officer recorded the statement of L.W.1 i.e. 4th respondent herein obtained certified copies of birth certificates of the children on 19.01.2024 from the Commissioner of Health and Sanitation, GHMC lower Tank Bund, verified the same. He has also obtained bona fide certificates of the children from Oakridge International School, Nanakramguda. On consideration of the same, the Investigating Officer added the aforesaid Sections.
Therefore, there is no irregularity in the same. 6 iii. The contentions raised by the petitioners herein to declare the inclusion of the aforesaid Sections in the subject crime are triable aspects and the petitioners have to face trial and prove their innocence.
13. With the said submissions, both the learned Asst. Govt. Pleader for Home and learned counsel appearing for 4th respondent sought to dismiss the present writ petition.
14. Sri Pattabhi Vemulapati, learned Senior Counsel representing Sri L. Prasad Rao, learned counsel for the petitioners made his submissions extensively and placed reliance on the principle laid down by the Apex Court in Siddharth vs. State of Uttar Pradesh 1.
15. Sri G.Aniketh Reddy, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home appearing for State and Sri Immineni Rama Rao, learned counsel for 4th respondent, made their submissions extensively and placed reliance on the principle laid down by the High Court of Madras in Daniel Hailey Walcott vs. State 2.
16. In the light of the said submissions, it is relevant to note that vide the aforesaid memo dated 29.08.2024, the Investigating Officer 1 (2022) 1 SCC 676 2 (1967) Law Suit (Mad) 137 7 added Sections 467, 468 and 471 of IPC to the existing Sections. The said sections included are extracted below:-
Section 463 of IPC: Forgery:-Whoever makes any false documents or part of a document with intent to cause damage or injury, to the public or to any person, or to support any claim or title, or to cause any person to part with property, or to enter into any express or implied contract, or with intent to commit fraud or that fraud may be committed, commits forgery.
Section 467 of IPC: Forgery of valuable security, will, etc. Whoever forges a document which purports to be a valuable security or a will, or an authority to adopt a son, or which purports to give authority to any person to make or transfer any valuable security, or to receive the principal, interest or dividends thereon, or to receive or deliver any money, movable property, or valuable security, or any document purporting to be an acquaintance or receipt acknowledging the payment of money, or an acquaintance or receipt for the delivery of any movable property or valuable security, shall be punished with 152[imprisonment for life], or with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.
17. To attract Section 467 of IPC the following ingredients are required:-
1. There should be forgery of a document, which purports to be a valuable security,
2. Authority to adopt a son.
18. Section 415 of IPC deals with cheating and the same is extracted below:-
Section 415 of IPC: Cheating-Whoever, by deceiving any person, fraudulently or dishonestly induces the person so deceived to deliver any property to any person, or to consent that any person shall retain any property, or intentionally induces the person so deceived to do or omit to do anything which he would not do or 8 omit if he were not so deceived, and which act or omission causes or is likely to cause damage or harm to that person in body, mind, reputation or property, is said to "cheat".
19. Section 468 of IPC deals with forgery for purpose of cheating and the same is extracted below:-
Section 468 of IPC:-Forgery for purpose of cheating - Whoever commits forgery, intending that the document forged shall be used for the purpose of cheating, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.
To attract the said offence, there should be forgery intending that the document forged shall be used for the purpose of cheating.
20. To attract cheating, there should be fraudulent dishonest inducement which is an essential ingredient to attract the offence under Section 420 of IPC, there should be delivery of property or any person, making, alter or destroy the valuable security or anything signed or sealed and capable of being converted into valuable security. The said Section is extracted below:-
420. Cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property:-
Whoever cheats and thereby dishonestly induces the person deceived to deliver any property to any person, or to make, alter or destroy the whole or any part of a valuable security, or anything which is signed or sealed, and which is capable of being converted into a valuable security,
21. Section 471 of IPC deals with using as genuine a forged document or electronic record. To attract the said offence, there 9 should be fraudulent usage of the said document as genuine knowing that it is a forged document or electronic record. The said section is extracted below:-
471. Using as genuine a forged document - Whoever fraudulently or dishonestly uses as genuine any document which he knows or has reason to believe to be a forged document, shall be punished in the same manner as if he had forged such document.
22. In the light of the same, this Court has to look into the investigation conducted by the Investigating Officer and basis on which, the aforesaid Sections were added.
23. In the memo dated 29.08.2024, the Investigating Officer categorically stated that during the course of investigation, he has examined and recorded the detailed statement of 4th respondent (L.W.1) at Police Station. He has served a notice under Section 91 of Cr.P.C. dated 11.01.2024 on the Commissioner of Health and Sanitation, GHMC, Lower Tank Bund, Hyderabad for collection of certified copies of birth certificates of three children i.e. 1) Bollineni Arjun, 2) Bollineni Krishna Vaishnavi and 3) Bollineni Srinika Chowdary. On 19.01.2024, he has received certified copies of the birth certificates of the aforesaid three children from GHMC, Circle-
17. He has verified the same. On 23.01.2024, he has served notice under Section 91 of Cr.P.C. to Oakridge International School, 10 Nanakramguda, for furnishing bona fide certificates of 1) Bollineni Arjun and Srinika Chowdary. He has received bona fide certificates from the Oakridge International School of Arjun Choudary and Srinika Chowdary and on verifying their bona fide certificates, their father's name is found as Bollineni Krishnaiah and mother's name Bollineni Sujatha.
24. It is further stated that during the course of investigation, the Investigating Officer served a notice under Section 41-A (1) of Cr.P.C. on the petitioners herein and served another notice dated 01.07.2024 under Section 91/160 Cr.P.C. on the 4th respondent with a request to provide other witnesses and details pertains to the present case.
25. On 02.07.2024, he has served notice under Section 91 of Cr.P.C. on Chirec International School, Kondapur for furnishing bona fide certificate of Venkayalapati Vyshnavi. On the same day, he has received bona fide certificate. On verification of the same, the Investigating Officer noticed that mother's name of 1) Arjun Chowdary Bollineni is changed on bona fide certificate of Oakridge International School, and the name of Bollineni Krishna Vaishnavi is changed as Venkalapati Vaishnavi, her father's name is changed as 11 Vankayalapati Sri Venkateshwara Prasad, changed on bona fide certificate of Chirec International School and their passports. Thus, the petitioners obtained the certificates of the children i.e. bona fide certificates and passports, by submitting forged documents.
26. On consideration of the said aspects, the Investigating Officer filed the aforesaid memo dated 29.08.2024 adding Sections 467, 468 and 471 of IPC to the existing Sections in the subject crime.
23. Prima facie, there are specific allegations of forgery of the documents and valuable security, and using the said forged documents as genuine. Whether the said act of the petitioners is for the purpose of cheating or not is a matter of trial. This Court cannot decide the said aspect in a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It is for the trial Court to consider the said aspect.
27. In the light of the said discussion, the contention of Sri Pattabhi Vemulapati, learned Senior Counsel that the said memo is without any basis, the ingredients of the aforesaid offences are lacking etc., cannot be considered in a writ petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India.
28. As discussed supra, vide common order dated 24.06.2024, this Court dismissed the said Crl.P.No.616 of 2024 and disposed of 12 W.P.No.1875 of 2024 directing the Investigating Officer in the subject crime to consider certain factual aspects while conducting investigation, in paragraph No.13. The said aspects including delay in lodging a complaint and relation between petitioner No.1 and respondent No.4 etc. Thus, they are triable issues. This Court cannot consider the said aspects in the present writ petition.
29. In this connection, it is apt to note that in Somjeet Mallick v. State of Jharkhand 3, the Apex Court held as follows:-
15. Before we proceed to test the correctness of the impugned order, we must bear in mind that at the stage of deciding whether a criminal proceeding or FIR, as the case may be, is to be quashed at the threshold or not, the allegations in the FIR or the police report or the complaint, including the materials collected during investigation or inquiry, as the case may be, are to be taken at their face value so as to determine whether a prima facie case for investigation or proceeding against the accused, as the case may be, is made out. The correctness of the allegations is not to be tested at this stage.
The said aspects were also considered by this Court in Kalvakuntla Taraka Rama Rao vs. State ACB, CIU, Hyderabad4.
30. In the light of the said principle, coming to the present case, as discussed supra, prima facie, there are serious allegations against 3 (2024) 10 SCC 527 4 2025 SCC OnLine TS 1 13 the petitioners of forging birth certificates, passports, bona fide certificates of children by mentioning wrong names of the mother in the aforesaid schools, GHMC and passport applications etc. Whether the said acts of the petitioners are for the purpose of cheating or not, is the matter to be considered by the trial Court but not by this Court in a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
31. It is also apt to note that challenging the order dated 23.12.2024 in W.P.No.27505 of 2024, 4th respondent filed Special Leave to Appeal (Crl) Nos.7981-7982 of 2025 before the Apex Court. Vide order dated 22.07.2025, the Apex Court, referred the matter to the Mediation Centre directing the parties to appear before the Mediator. The same is unsuccessful. The said SLP is pending.
32. During the course of hearing, Sri G.Aniketh Reddy, learned Asst. Govt. Pleader for Home, brought to the notice of this Court that the Investigating Officer has completed investigation and charge sheet is ready. Due to the pendency of the present writ petition, the Investigating Officer has not filed charge sheet and he is waiting for outcome of the present writ petition.
33. As discussed supra, in paragraph No.13 of the aforesaid common order dated 24.06.2024 in Crl.P.No.616 of 2024 and 14 W.P.No.1875 of 2024, this Court directed the Investigating Officer to consider 12 factual aspects in conducting investigation including the contention of 1st petitioner therein that 4th respondent is not his legally wedded wife, they are in live-in-relationship etc. This Court also directed the Investigating Officer to conduct investigation with regard to delay in lodging complaint by 4th respondent. However, 1st petitioner is not disputing that he is father of the children. According to him, he has not married 4th respondent and they are in live-in- relationship. According to 4th respondent, she is legally wedded wife of 1st petitioner. However, it is for the Investigating Officer in the subject crime to conduct investigation on the said aspect and it is for the trial Court to consider said aspects.
34. Perusal of the judgment relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioners in Siddharth (supra), the facts therein are different to the facts of the case on hand.
35. 1st petitioner is 80 years old. Petitioner Nos.2 and 3 are Doctors by profession. Admittedly, there is delay on the part of respondent No.4 in lodging the complaint. Therefore, this Court is of the view that there is no need to arrest the petitioners pursuant to alteration memo dated 29.08.2024. Therefore, this Court is not 15 inclined to declare the action of Investigating Officer in adding Sections 467, 468 and 471 of IPC in addition to the existing Sections in Cr.No.17 of 2024 pending on the file 3rd respondent, as illegal.
36. In the light of the aforesaid discussion and in view of the principle laid down by the Apex Court, this writ petition is disposed of directing the Investigating Officer in Cr.No.17 of 2024/3rd respondent, to file charge sheet without arresting the petitioners herein.
Consequently, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this writ petition, shall stand closed.
__________________________ JUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN Date:24.09.2025.
vvr