IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH:: HYDERABAD THURSDAY, THE FIRST DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT:: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY CRL.P.No.4742 OF 2009 Between: Koluguri Vasanth …Petitioner A n d The State of A.P., Rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad and others ..Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY CRL.P.No.4742 OF 2009 ORDER: This petition is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., for quashing further proceedings against the petitioner/accused in C.C.No.805 of 2008, on the file of the II-Metropolitan Magistrate, Ranga Reddy at L.B.Nagar. 2. Heard both sides. Perused the record. 3. The 2nd respondent herein filed a private complaint before the II-Metropolitan Magistrate, Ranga Reddy at L.B.Nagar against the petitioner/accused for the offences under Sections 420, 463, 464, 468, 471 IPC and the same was forwarded to the police under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., based on which the police registered F.I.R in Cr.No.24 of 2007 and after due investigation filed charge sheet against the petitioner/accused only for the offence under Section 420 IPC, deleting the other offences and the same was taken cognizance by the learned Magistrate in C.C.No.805 of 2008. 4. According to the prosecution, the 3rd respondent herein M.Shakuntala, who is the wife of the complainant M.Chandraiah (2nd respondent herein) was the owner and possessor of plot No.18 measuring 259.72 sq. yards situate in Maheswaram village, having purchased the same from P.Parvathal Reddy and N.Balraj under a registered sale deed dated 18.09.1990. It is alleged that in 1995 they took Rs.10,000/- from the accused, who is their relative, and pledged the original sale deed as security and did not repay the amount and thereafter in 2006, the complainant sold the plot to L.W.3 and executed a sale deed dated 19.07.2006 for Rs.20 lakhs and received Rs.1 lakh as advance and few days later received a further sum of Rs.6 lakhs. The complainant alleges that the entire amount of Rs.7 lakhs was given to the accused for depositing the same in the bank as they are illiterate and did not have any bank account. When the complainant and his wife asked the accused about the original sale deed which was pledged with him and also the amount given to him, the accused was dodging the matter on some pretext or the other. It is further alleged that the accused created two fake promissory notes dated 12.11.2001 for Rs.4,50,000/- and dated 30.12.2003 for Rs.5,50,000/- by forging the signatures of the complainant and his wife with mala fide intention and thereby cheated them. It is stated that the Court forwarded the disputed documents along with specimen signatures of the complainant and his wife to the FSL for the purpose of comparison and report, but it was returned on 23.01.2008 requesting the Court to send the admitted signatures written in the normal course of business and specimen signatures in English. The charge sheet shows that as the complainant and his wife are illiterates and did not have any bank accounts, the admitted signatures could not be collected and as such the disputed signatures were not forwarded to the FSL for opinion again and the sections of law under 468 and 471 IPC are deleted. It is rather intriguing that instead of securing the admitted signatures of the complainant M.Chandraiah, who is admittedly a signatory and sending the same to the FSL through Court for the purpose of comparison with the signatures on the disputed documents, the investigating officer has chosen to delete the sections of law 468 and 471 IPC altogether. 5. Be that as it may, the specific allegation made against the petitioner is that a sum of Rs.7 lakhs has been entrusted to him and the same has been misappropriated by the petitioner and he has also not returned the title deed kept with him by way of pledge and thereby cheated the complainant. The truth or otherwise of the said allegation is a matter to be ascertained on evidence that may be adduced during the course of trial. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that as the petitioner filed O.S.No.2 of 2007 before the District Court, Ranga Reddy District for recovery of the amount due under the promissory notes, the respondents have given a false complaint against him. Whether or not the suit promissory notes are genuine and supported by consideration, is also a matter to be considered by the civil Court in O.S.No.2 of 2007. 7. Having regard to the nature of the offence alleged and the specific allegation made against the petitioner prima facie attracting the ingredients of the alleged offence under Section 420 IPC, the truth or otherwise of which can be tested only on evidence, it is considered not a fit case to invoke the inherent powers of the Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C and quash further proceedings against the petitioner. 8. It is well settled that the inherent powers of the Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C have to be invoked with care, caution and circumspection to prevent abuse of process of law, but not to thwart further proceedings, especially when the allegation is made against the accused prima facie attracting the ingredients of the alleged offence. There are no valid or justifiable grounds to quash further proceedings in C.C.No.805 of 2008, on the file of the II- Metropolitan Magistrate, Ranga Reddy at L.B.Nagar. 9. In the result, the criminal petition is dismissed. ____________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J 01st December, 2011 Lrkm