Page 1 of 20 C.C.No.114 of 2015 Dt:26.08.2025
IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,
BHADRACHALAM.
(CRIMINAL COURT FOR AGENCY AREAS)
Dated this on 26thday of August, 2025
Present: Dr.Bommathi Bhavani, Junior Civil Judge-Cum-
Judicial Magistrate of First Class,
Dammapeta. FAC: Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Bhadrachalam.
CC.No.114 of 2015
Between: P.Laxmi Dhana Reddy, S/o.Veera Bhadra Reddy, Age: 34 Years, Occ: Home Guard, R/o.H.No.5-1-88, Mudiraj Street, Bhadrachalam. ……Protestant //And//
Kotte Rama Swamy, S/o.Akkulu, Age:45 Years, Occ: Head Constable, A.R H.C No.120, Incharge to Home Guards, Bhadrachalam Town Police Station, Bhadrachalam. …… Accused * * * This case is coming before me on 12.08.2025 for final hearing in the presence of Sri B.Arun Chand, Learned Counsel for the Complainant and of Sri M.Ramachandraiah, Learned counsel for Accused, upon perusing the material papers on record, having heard both sides and having stood over for consideration till this day, the court delivered the following:
Section of Law:U/S 468, 420 of IPC Plea of the Accused:Pleaded not guilty Finding of the Court:Found not guilty
Page 2 of 20 C.C.No.114 of 2015 Dt:26.08.2025
Accordingly, Accused is found not guilty for the offense punishable U/S 468, 420 of IPC, acquitted under Sec- tion 248(1) Cr.P.C. Otherwise not re- Sentence or Order : quired in any other case. The bail bonds of the accused shall stands can- celed after appeal time as per Sec.437-A Cr.P.C.
: J U D G M E N T :
1.This is a Protest Petition filed under section 190(1)(a) of the Code of Criminal Procedure on 28/06/2010 by the Protestant/
Complainant P.Laxmi Dhana Reddy, S/o.Veerabhadra Reddy against the person named Kotte Rama Swamy, S/o.Akkulu, seeking to punish the accused for the offence U/sec.468 & 420 of Indian
Penal Code.
2.The Contentions of the Protestant are that, Sub-Inspector of
Police, Bhadrachalam, after completion of the investigation filed final report on the ground that facts were not established against the accused, further contended that, as Sub- Inspector of police,
Bhadrachalam had not done the investigation in a proper way, as the accused had sent the resignation of the complainant without the consent or signature of him, the same was not recommended or
Page 3 of 20 C.C.No.114 of 2015 Dt:26.08.2025 accepted by the Local Sub-Inspector of Police, Circle Inspector of Police,
Sub- Divisional Police Officer and Superintendent of police and they had not removed the complainant from his services, but in the removal order the complainant name was mentioned, the same was manipulated by the accused.
Further contended that, he had received the salary till 31.01.2006 through online transactions, if really he was removed from the services, how he will receive the salary, worked in traffic duty deputed by SHO, Bhadrachalam in January 2006, worked as a security
Guard at Sarapaka Telephone Exchange duty allotted by the accused under the instructions of the Circle Inspector, Bhadrachalam, perhaps on 01.02.2006, all of the sudden accused refused to allot the duty to the complainant and other colleagues, then they questioned the accused but in vain.
Further, protestant had given a representation to the
Superintendent of Police, Khammam for taking necessary action against the accused with regard his job, then the same was sent to
Bhadrachalam Town Police for enquiry, after enquiry, Circle Inspector informed him about the resignation, then he informed the same to the
Sub- Inspector of Police, Bhadrachalam about alleged false resignation, thereby SI of police, Bhadrachalam issued a letter C.No.117/SI-D/09 to him.
Page 4 of 20 C.C.No.114 of 2015 Dt:26.08.2025
Further contended that, the Investigation Officer hadn't done the investigation in proper lines and several lapses were found in the investigation, Police Department had not taken his contentions and issued fake report on the resignation order of him.
Hence requested the Hon’ble Court to allow the protest petition and register the case against the accused under Section 468 & 420 IPC in interest of justice.
3.Basing the Protest petition, this Court recorded the statements of the Protestant and other witnesses Vide S.R.No:2590/2010 in Cr.No; 134/ 2010.
The Contents of the statements of the Protestant and other witnesses disclose that, the Protestant initially filed the private compliant requesting the court to forward his complaint to SHO P.S.
Bhadrachalam Town, in which mentioned that, he had worked as Home
Guard No.435 under the incharge of the Accused. While it being so, the accused committed several irregularities and misappropriation of the funds by causing loss to the Police Department by taking bribes from the general public to defame the police department. In that connection the complainant refused to act as hand in glow with the accused, as the complainant not co-operated the accused, he harassed the complainant in various methods by facing the same in a unbearable situation the
LW2( CH.Ramanaiah S/o.Pullaiah) filed a complaint to the higher
Page 5 of 20 C.C.No.114 of 2015 Dt:26.08.2025 authorities against the accused in respect of the above said offenses citing the complainant as one of the witness, the same are pending
before the higher authorities as such the accused bore grudge against
the Complainant, hatched plan to damage the complainant, with a malafide intention to do injustice to the complainant, caused loss to the complainant, accused drafted a resignation letter on the name of the complainant by forging the complainant's signature, send it to
Superintendent of Police, Khammam. Accordingly the Superintendent of Police issued a general order Dt.16-12-2005 by removing the several home guards including the complainant, the said order was signed on 03.01.2006. The complainant came to know the said fact through staff on 12.09.2006, immediately he filed a representation to the higher authorities including Deputy Inspector General of Police, Warangal, the same can be treated as a Appeal before the higher authorities. The said representation is pending before the authorities immediately when he came to know the said fact that the accused forged the signature of the complainant drafted a letter to the Superintendent of Police Khammam.
Further, he filed a written complaint before the Station House Officer,
Bhadrachalam Town Police Station on 12.09.2006 , the copy of the complaint was also sent to the Inspector General of Police, Hyderabad,
Deputy Inspector General of Police, Warangal and other authorities with a request to take immediate action against the accused, in respect of the offenses committed under penal code. The entire malafide action of
Page 6 of 20 C.C.No.114 of 2015 Dt:26.08.2025 the accused committing forgery of the complainant's signature and sending a created letter of resignation to the SP. Khammam in order to cheat the complainant the acts of the accused are liable punishment
U/s 468 and 420 IPC.
In spite of written complaint filed by the complainant
Dt.12.9.2006 the Station House Officer, Town Police Station,
Bhadrachalam did not register the FIR against the accused and the as accused used influence against the SHO, the said circumstances the complainant has no other alternative except to approach the Hon'ble
Court by way of filing private complaint U/Sec.200 Cr.P.C
On perusal of the material evidence on record, this court allowed the protest petition on 03.02.2015, taken on cognizance for the offenses U/S 468, 420 IPC against the accused U/ S 190 (1) (A) of Crpc, issued summons U/S 204 (1)(b) Crpc to the accused on payment of process.
4.The accused after receipt of summons appeared before this court and the copies were furnished to him as contemplated U/s 207 of
Cr.P.C., and examined under section 239 Cr.P.C., by explaining the accusation leveled in the Protest Petition for the offence punishable under section 468, 420 of Indian Penal Code, for which he denied all the allegations mentioned in the Protest Petition, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
Page 7 of 20 C.C.No.114 of 2015 Dt:26.08.2025
5.During the course of trial, on behalf of Protestant, PW1 to PW9 were examined and EX.P1 to P5 were marked.
6.Upon closure of Protestant evidence, accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., by explaining the incriminating evidence found against him in complainant’s evidence for which, he denied the same, reported no evidence on his behalf.
7.Heard arguments of both the parties and the counsel for the
Protestant and the accused, perused the material on the record.
8.Now the point for determination is :
"Whether the Protestant is able to prove the guilt of the Accused for the offence U/Sec.468, 420 IPC beyond reasonable doubt "?
9.P O I N T :
In order to prove the case of the prosecution, it relies on the oral evidence of PW1 to 9, EX.P1 to 5.
PW1 testified in his evidence that, he had joined as Home guard in Police department in 1996, on 02.11.2005 Home guard named Ch.
Ramanaiah informed that, Head constable named Kotte
Ramaswamy/Accused harassed him by demanding bribe, as such gave a report to DSP, then he promised the said person that he will give evidence before DSP about the issue, the said information reached to
Page 8 of 20 C.C.No.114 of 2015 Dt:26.08.2025 the accused, then accused threatened him that, he will remove him from the job, 01.02.2016, the accused stopped his duties, then all the colleagues demanded the accused to give written reasons, as they have not received any information from the accused, he gave a report to
Superintendent of Police, Khammam, then he came to know through CI of police, Bhadachalam that, he was resigned to the job, then on 12.09.2006 reported to Sub Inspector of police, Bhadrachalam, but they haven't taken any action, as such filed the Private Complaint EX. P1, the same was referred to the police concerned, subsequently police filed closure charge sheet, basing on that, he filed protest petition, EX. P2.
Further testified that, he obtained the information under Right to
Information Act and came to know that accused forged his signature on the resignation letter, proceedings of superintendent of Police.
In cross examination he admitted that, Home guard is temporary in nature, Superintendent of Police made selections for Home-guards, headed by one DIG, Reserve Inspector look after the affairs of Home- guards in every district, one Head Constable was placed incharge for
Home-guards in every Sub-division, SDPO, concerned Head Constable allot duties to Home-guard and Superintendent of police having power to remove the Home-guard from their posts, Head constable having power to allot duties to home- guards It is not true to suggest that the procedure for acceptance of resignation was taken for 2 months as such
Page 9 of 20 C.C.No.114 of 2015 Dt:26.08.2025
I assigned with duty in the month of November, 2005 December, 2005 and January, 2006.
Further he denied for the suggestions that, The Superintendent of police accepted his resignation, no one can alter the orders of the
Superintendent of police, the superintendent of police issued his removal letter, there is no possibility to add the name in the list of removals by others, never gave any complaint against the accused to the police higher officials, the FSL officials gave an opinion that the accused was no way concerned to this case, police closed the case as there is no evidence in the case, not received any salary after 16.12.2015.
PW2 to 4 testified in their evidence, they are working as a Home guards, they know PW1, worked as Home guard. Accused used to work as incharge of Homeguard unit, Bhadrachalam. On 01.02.2006, accused came to Bhadrachalam to allot duties, allotted duties to all of them, but not allotted duty to PW1, then they asked about non allotting of duty to
PW1, accused replied that higher authorities instructed not to allot any duty to PW1. they insisted Accused to submit reasons in writing, but he had not furnished. Further they stated that, prior to non allotting of the duty to PW1, accused demanded amount from one Home guard named
Challa Ramanaiah in the presence of PW1, then onwards, accused bore
Page 10 of 20 C.C.No.114 of 2015 Dt:26.08.2025 grudge against the PW1, fabricated resignation letter, sent to the same to SP Office, the same was accepted.
In cross examination, they admitted that, Homeguard service is a
Social service and temporary basis, the superintendent of police select the home-guards, DIG is the head for state level Home guard unit, One
AR Inspector is incharge for Home guards unit in the district, superintendent of police look after the entire process of recruitment of
Home guards in the district, Homeguard can resign their job or superintendent of police can remove the Home guard from services, AR
Head Constable will be incharge for Home guards in a police sub- division, under the supervisor of sub-divisional police officer, AR Head constable allotted the duties to the Home guard, AR Head constable having no power to remove a Home guard, list of removals issued from the office of superintendent of police.
Further they admitted that, PW1 informed about the alleged demand of amount by the accused to Challa Ramanaiah and about the fabrication of the resignation letter.
PW6 testified in his evidence that, he worked as SI of police at PS
Bhadrachalam Town from 27.09.2004 to 22.12.2007, know complainant and accused, worked as home guard and head constable(Reserved police) respectively, accused was in charge of home guards in the unit. I cannot say exact dates of the complainant worked in the Bhadrachalam unit but during my tenure at Bhadrachalam Town PS as Sl of police the
Page 11 of 20 C.C.No.114 of 2015 Dt:26.08.2025 complainant worked as Home Guard in Bhadrachalam Police Station, As
SHO of Bhadrachalam Town PS he use to prepare salary bills of Home
Guards working in the unit, do not know the procedure with regard to appointment and removals of Home Guards , only concern with regard to present or absent of each Home Guard in every day.The accused is responsible for sending of reports with regard to working condition or welfare, other issues of Home Guards to higher officials as Head
Constable. While discharging duties if any Home Guard does any mischief or any act against the rules or interest of department, the same will be reported to the Higher Officials, he had knowledge that, complainant was removed from service on the ground of absent" and "alcoholism", do not know whether any allegation was made against the accused alleging that he was demanding bribe from Home Guards.
case is registered on the complainant of PW1 basing on court refer complaint. The case was registered on 02.07.2007,case is registered on the report of complainant vide Cr.No. 134/2007.
Further he denied for the suggestion of the defense counsel, the complainant gave a report to him alleging that the accused by creating forged documents made PW1 as jobless, do not know whether on 1.2.2006 the Home Guards questioned the accused about his acts about removal of PW1 by creating forged document, do not know whether a departmental enquiry was also conducted in the issue of removal of PW1 for forged documents.
Page 12 of 20 C.C.No.114 of 2015 Dt:26.08.2025
PW7 testified that, he had been retired from Service as Addl.S.P.
in 2019. Previously, worked as Inspector of Police at Bhadrachalam
Circle from 27-07-2005 to 29-06-2008, know the PW1 and accused who worked as home guard, Head Constable (Armed Reserve) incharge of
Home Guards in the Division, accused used to allot duties to Home
Guards in the Division, used to prepare Salary Bills of Home Guards by taking attendance particulars from Police Stations through Proper
Channel, Head Constable who was incharge of affairs relating to Home
Guards is responsible person to initiate any action against the Home
Guard for any violation, but if any crime is registered against the Home
Guard the Incharge of Police Station report the matter to
Superintendent of Police. The salary Bills of Home Guards are transmitted through the concerned Polic where the Home Guard is deputed to work, except attendance register no other document of
Home Guard is available with Police Station, during his tenure at
Bhadrachalam Circle the PW1 was removed from service by self resignation letter,when worked at Bhadrachalam Circle Sri Udaya
Bhaskar worked as Sub-Divisional Police Officer, do not remember whether said Udaya Bhaskar taken over case of enquiry against the accused from him, this Court referred a case to S.H.O., P.S.,
Bhadrachalam on the complaint of the PW1, do not remember whether any list was forwarded from Circle during tenure containing the names
Page 13 of 20 C.C.No.114 of 2015 Dt:26.08.2025 of Home Guards who were removed from service including the PW1.
The Home Guards service is a temporary and run by Voluntary
Organizations. The Superintendent of Police of concerned District has authority to appoint or remove or take any action against the Home
Guards. There are D.I.G, I.G. and other Superior Office supervise the work conditions and make any rules with regard to working condition of
Home Guards etc., no proceeding with regard to appointment, removal etc., of Home Guards are carried through Civil Police. The Head
Constable who looks after affairs relating to working conditions of Home
Guards in the division has no power to remove the Home Guards from the service and he cannot take any action suo-moto.
PW8 testified that, Presently working as Addl.D.G. Operation in
Andhra Pradesh at Vishakahapatnam, Previously, worked as
Superintendent of Police of Khammam District from 2005 to 2007, know the complainant, who worked as Home Guard in Khammam District, accused worked as Head Constable and Incharge of Home Guards at
Bhadrachalam Division, any letter forwarded by Home Guard is signed by him before action is taken on the said letter, do not know remember exactly whether resignation letter of complainant was given directly, in general accused only brings any letter regarding affairs of Home
Guards . Generally, Armed Reserve Police of District Incharge forwards report to and the same will be placed before the Committee consisting of three persons, proceeding of Committee or recommendation of
Page 14 of 20 C.C.No.114 of 2015 Dt:26.08.2025
Committee will be forwarded to Home Guards, as the request of resignation of the Home Guard was received, as it is a voluntary
Service, placed the same before three-man Committee without calling the person individually. On 16.12.2005 an Order for removal of service of complainant and other persons was made, it was signed by him on 02.01.2006, as it is a voluntary Service, the Home Guard presence is not needed before his resignation is accepted, but when a person is removed from service on other grounds like absence of duties, involvement of criminal cases, etc., an enquiry will be conducted, do not know whether resignation letter of complainant was forged by the accused.
In cross examination admitted that, committee headed by
Superintendent of Police is competent authority for appointing and removal of Home Guards, 21 persons were removed from service belongs to Khammam District on various reasons on 16.12.2005 vide
Proc.Order.C.No.2/RI-HGO-KMM/2005, in which PW1 was one person, as per the recommendations of three man committee, accepted by the
Addl. D.G.Home Guards, same was communicated to persons concerned through proper channel. After forwarding resignation letter to S.P. Office there is no role of A.S.I. or any other person in further action on that letter will be initiated by the Committee, do not know whether accused has committed any forgery.
Page 15 of 20 C.C.No.114 of 2015 Dt:26.08.2025
PW9 testified that, he is resident of Hyderabad, Presently working as DSP, Anti Corruption Bureau, Hyderabad from July, 2021. Previously worked as SI of Police, Bhadrachalam town from November, 2007 to
December, 2010, conducted further investigation in Cr.No. 134/2007 u/s. 468, 420 IPC., during investigation, collected Specimen writings, signatures of suspect and PW1, sent the same to FSL, on 20.05.2009 received FSL report wherein it was reported the person who wrote the red enclosed writings marked S21 to S36 did not write the red enclosed writings marked "". It is also opined that extensive admitted writings and signatures of "P.L. Danna Reddy/ PW1 are required to offer an opinion on the authorship of the red enclosed writings and signature marked Q1 and 02, EX.P3 FSL report, subsequently again collected specimen hand writings, signatures of informant second time before this Hon’ble court, same were sent to FSL authorities, the authorities of
FSL reported that they are also not sufficient to give an opinion, then submitted final report before this court on 31.05.2009. The final report was not returned by this court for complying some objections . EX.P5 is
Crime Details Form in FIR No. 134/2007 Dt.02.07.2007.
Point for Determination :
10.The evidence of PW1, Protestant discloses that, he had joined as
Home guard in Police department in 1996, on 02.11.2005 Home guard named Ch. Ramanaiah informed that, Head constable named Kotte
Page 16 of 20 C.C.No.114 of 2015 Dt:26.08.2025
Ramaswamy/Accused harassed him by demanding bribe, as such gave a report to DSP, then he promised the said person that he will give evidence before DSP about the issue, the said information reached to the accused, then accused threatened him that, he will remove him from the job. On 01.02.2016, the accused stopped his duties, regard to that, all the colleagues demanded the accused to give written reasons, as they have not received any information from the accused, he gave a report to Superintendent of Police, Khammam, came to know through CI of police, Bhadachalam that, he was resigned to the job, on 12.09.2006 he reported to Sub Inspector of police, Bhadrachalam, but they haven't taken any action, as such filed the Private Complaint EX. P1, the same was referred to the police concerned, subsequently police filed closure charge sheet, basing on that, he filed protest petition, EX. P2, obtained the information under Right to Information Act and came to know that accused forged his signature on the resignation letter, proceedings of superintendent of Police.
By the above evidence of PW1, it elicited that, he and accused had some earlier issues, as such accused took opportunity of his designation, that he was head of home guards and prepared the false resignation letter by forgery of his signature. In view of the above allegations and to corroborate his contentions, PW1 hadn't filed oral or documentary evidence, furthermore, the witnesses examined on behalf of him, who were his colleagues, PW2 to 5, testified in their cross
Page 17 of 20 C.C.No.114 of 2015 Dt:26.08.2025 examination that, the evidence what they had deposed in chief examination was transmitted by the PW1 and they don’t have any personal knowledge of the facts which was alleged by the PW1, the admissions of the PW2 to 5 clearly elicited that, they are the hearsay evidence and their evidence haven't stood supportive for the case of
PW1, as hearsay evidence is no evidence before the Law.
On other hand, from the evidence of officials witnesses PW6 to 9, nothing elicited whether PW1 and accused use to have any earlier disputes, moreover they denied for the suggestions about receiving any
Complaint from the PW1 against the accused. Even though PW1 testified in his evidence that, he gave a report to Superintendent of
Police, Khammam and Sub Inspector of police, Bhadrachalam, indeed, neither he had filed the copies of said complaints before the court nor confronted the said complaints in the evidence of witnesses, by the above facts elicited, found that there is no corroborative evidence on behalf of the PW1 for the allegation that higher forum hadn't taken his contentions into record.
Furthermore, all the witnesses examined on behalf of PW1 admitted that, Home-guard duty is temporary in nature,
Superintendent of Police do the selections for Home-guards, headed by one DIG, Reserve Inspector look after the affairs of Home-guards in
Page 18 of 20 C.C.No.114 of 2015 Dt:26.08.2025 every district, one Head Constable was placed incharge for Home- guards in every Sub-division, SDPO, concerned Head Constable allot duties to Home-guard and Superintendent of police have power to remove the Home-guard from their posts, Head constable have power only to allot duties to home- guards. By the above admissions of the all the witnesses of PW1, it clearly shows that, accused cannot terminate the services of the PW1, only Superintendent of police have power to remove the Home-guard from their posts according to the due process and procedure established.
On other hand the contention taken by the PW1 that, after obtaining the resignation letter through RTA, he came to know that, accused forged his signature on resignation letter is not supported by any of the witnesses, furthermore the same is portrayed as false by the opinion and findings submitted by the Expert in EX.P4.
11.On through scrutiny of evidence of protestant, other witness, material and documents available on the record, it clearly established that, except the bare allegations that accused fabricated and forged the signature of PW1 on resignation letter, no other supportive or corroborative evidence placed by the protestant/PW1 to substantiate his contentions. Hence PW1 had failed to prove his case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt.
Page 19 of 20 C.C.No.114 of 2015 Dt:26.08.2025
12. IN THE RESULT, Accused is found not guilty for the offense punishable U/S 468, 420 of IPC, acquitted under Section 248(1) Cr.P.C.
Otherwise not required in any other case. The bail bonds of the accused shall stands canceled after appeal time as per Sec.437-A Cr.P.C.
Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in the Open court, on this the 26th day of August, 2025.
FAC: JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,
BHADRACHALAM.
Appendix of Evidence Witnesses examined. For prosecution PW1. Pilaka laxmidhan reddy PW2. Sarangi Venkateshwarllu PW3. Chinta Venkateshwarllu PW4. S. Hemalatha PW5. Challa Ramana PW6. Challa Deva reddy PW7. B. Ashok kumar PW8. RK. Meena PW9. R.Satish kumar
For defence: Nil
Exhibits Marked For prosecution EX.P1. Private Complaint. EX.P2. Protest Petition EX.P3. Reference Letter of FSL EX.P4. FIR EX.P5. CDF
Page 20 of 20 C.C.No.114 of 2015 Dt:26.08.2025
For defence:
-Nil- Material Objects Marked -Nil-
FAC: JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,
BHADRACHALAM.