IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRAPRADESH AT HYDERABAD HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL PETITION No.4237 of 2009 DATE:21.10.2010 Between: K.M.M.Prabhu …… Petitioner And: The S.H.O, Taluk P.S, Kurnool District and the State of A.P. rep. By its Public Prosecutor And another. …..Respondents HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL PETITION No.4237 of 2009 ORDER: The petitioner is accused of offences punishable under Sections 447, 420, 468 I.P.C in Crime No.128 of 2009 of Kurnool Taluk Police Station. The 2nd respondent/defacto-complainant is stated to be wife of one A.R.Inspector. She claims to have purchased plot No.10 in S.No.67/1-2/144 of Maddelapadu village in outskirts of Kurnool town. According to the 2nd respondent, the petitioner had brought into existence as per plan fake documents from the year 1996 onwards for this plot and she came to know about it from the encumbrance certificate which she had obtained recently and the petitioner is making construction of house property therein illegally. 2) It is contended by the petitioner’s counsel that he and his sister purchased the plot in the year 1996 jointly and that his sister sold her half share to the petitioner in the year 2003 and that he applied for municipal permission for construction of house property therein and that he has been making construction in the plot with permission of the Municipal Corporation of Kurnool. But for the allegation that fake documents were brought into existence since the year 1996, the entire subject matter of the case becomes a civil dispute between the parties. Simply because one of the parties purchased the plot from a person not having legal title, it will not amount to any criminal offence at all. It becomes a dispute of civil nature. But in this case, the 2nd respondent alleges that the petitioner is a party to creation of fake documents from the year 1996. Therefore, I do not find any reason to stall the investigation of this crime at its threshold. It is for the investigating officer to make scientific investigation to find out whether the registered documents in favour of the petitioner since the year 1996 are true documents or fake documents. It is only after finding that the documents in favour of the petitioner are fake documents, then the investigating officer will be at liberty to file the charge sheet against the petitioner. 3) In the result, the Criminal Petition is dismissed. However, the investigating officer is directed not to arrest the petitioner during investigation and until filing of charge sheet. _______________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU, J October 21, 2010 KSH