IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRAPRADESH AT HYDERABAD HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL PETITION No.10330 of 2009 DATE: 20.12.2011 Between: K.Anand Kumar …… Petitioner And The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Public Prosecutor and another …… Respondents HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL PETITION No.10330 of 2009 ORDER : The petitioner/A-2 is accused of offences punishable under Sections 420, 468, 471, 120-B I.P.C. Subject matter of dispute between the 2nd respondent/defacto-complainant and A-1 is property left by late K.Rama Krishna Murthy. The property consists of 300 Sq. yards of site together with house property therein consisting of 4 door numbers in New Nallakunta, Hyderabad. A-1 propounded a will said to have been executed by late Rama Krishna Murthy. The 2nd respondent claims rights in the property by virtue of registered gift deed said to have been executed by late Rama Krishna Murthy. On the basis of will, A-1 filed O.S. No.323 of 2006 on the file of XVII Additional Chief Judge- cum-III Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad. It is stated that the said suit was dismissed for default as A-1 did not pursue the same. A-1 is not a party to this criminal petition. 2) It is alleged that A-1 in collusion with A-2 entered into agreement for sale-cum-General Power of Attorney dated 02.02.2009 in favour of A-1 for the disputed property. A-2 is not in any way related to A-1. A-2 was not a party to O.S. No.32 of 2006. There is no basis for the allegation that A-2 colluded with A-1 either in fabrication of the alleged will propounded by A-1 or in any other way. Registration of the complaint forwarded by the Magistrate to the police, is nothing short abuse of process of law in so far as A-2 is concerned. In case will propounded by A-1 is a forged and fabricated one, it is open for the 2nd respondent to proceed against A-1 under criminal law. In the absence of any participation for fabricating the alleged forged will, A-2 cannot be harassed by way of this F.I.R. 3) Hence, the Criminal Petition is allowed quashing F.I.R in Crime No.396/2009 of Chikkadapalli Police Station in so far as the petitioner/A-2 is concerned. _______________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU, J December 20, 2011 ksh