APHC010400022023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3457] MONDAY, THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 5867/2023 Between: M.anisul Haq and Others ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED(S) AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner/accused(S): 1. R GOPI MOHAN Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S): 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP) The Court made the following Order: Heard Ms. P. Prashamsha, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Sri R. Gopi Mohan, learned counsel for the petitioners, and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for the State. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are arraigned as accused Nos.1 to 5 in C.C.No.1356 of 2018 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Nandyala, for the alleged offences under Sections 420, 465, 471, and 182 r/w 120-B of the IPC. It is submitted that the 2nd 2 respondent is the father-in-law of the 2nd petitioner. It is further submitted that the 2nd respondent’s son and the 2nd petitioner were married on 20.01.2013 and, due to certain marital disputes, obtained a divorce from the competent Court on 16.08.2014. The 2nd respondent, for reasons best known to himself, has filed a complaint alleging that the petitioners forged the date of birth certificate of the 2nd petitioner for the purpose of marriage and fabricated documents to show that the 2nd petitioner was born on 20.07.1989. 3. It is submitted that the 2nd respondent has filed a complaint two years after the grant of divorce to the 2nd petitioner and the son of the 2nd respondent. It is also submitted that, even as per the charge sheet, the Investigating Officer refers to the date of birth mentioned in the biodata of Accused No.2 as 20.07.1990, and that during the marriage, in the Nikah Nama, it was mentioned as 20.07.1989. It is stated in the charge sheet that the 2nd respondent came to know that the actual date of birth of the 2nd petitioner was 20.07.1987. 4. However, it is stated that the petitioners have changed the date of birth of the 2nd petitioner to 20.07.1989 in her SSC Marks Memo. As such, the petitioners have cheated the VRO, VAO, Revenue Inspector, Tahsildar, and also the RDO of Nandyal. The investigating officer has recorded the statements of three witnesses, including the statement of the 2nd respondent. Listed as witness No.3 is one V.L. Janardhan Reddy, the principal of Saym Vidya Vihar, Noonepalli, opposite the Government Hospital, Nandyal. The listed witness No.3 would only state that the bonafide certificate shown to the witness does not tally with the bonafide certificate issued by the school. No other document, either the 3 SSC certificate or any other documents, was confronted to the listed witness No.3 to ascertain the veracity of the said document. The investigating officer has not recorded the statements of any witnesses from the SSC Board or from the municipal authorities in the absence of any evidence to ascertain or prima facie come to the conclusion that the petitioners have committed an offence under Sections 420, 465, 471, 182 r/w 120-B of the IPC. The continuation of criminal proceedings against the petitioners on the mere statements of the listed witness No.1, the de facto complainant, and another witness who happens to be the principal of a school and has not even seen the alleged fabricated SSC certificate of the 2nd petitioner. 5. On these grounds, this Court is inclined to quash the C.C.No.1356 of 2018 on the file of Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Nandyala, against the petitioners. 6. Accordingly, this Criminal Petition is allowed. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. ____________________ JUSTICE HARINATH.N Date: 21.04.2025 PNS