HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY CRIMINAL PETITION No. 3107 of 2007 ORDER: This petition has been filed U/Sec. 482 of Cr.P.C. with a prayer to quash the Proceedings in CC No. 347 of 2006 on the file of the II Addl. Judicial I Class Magistrate, Eluru, West Godavari District. 2. The facts of the case in brief are:- one Bommu Chinna Venkateswara Rao got two sons and one daughter through his first wife. Bommu Veera Venkata Satyanarayana (defacto complainant) is one among the children of Bommu Chinna Venkateswara Rao. After the death of the first wife, Bommu Chinna Venkateswara Rao allegedly developed intimacy with a women by name Bommu Baby Saronini (A-1). She gave birth to four sons, who are no other than the petitioners 1 to 4 herein. Bommu Chinna Venkateswara Rao died on 05-04-1993 in a road accident. 3. It is the case of the defacto complainant, who is 2nd respondent herein ,that the children of Bommu Chinna Venkateswara Rao through Bommu Baby Sarojini fabricated a will said to have been executed by Bommu Chinna Venkateswara Rao. The petitioner herein filed a suit being OS No. 15 of 1987 in the court of the Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Eluru, West Godavari District. They propounded the will said to have been executed by Bommu China Venakteswara Rao. The defacto complainant, who is the 2nd respondent herein, disputed the said will and got the will examined by an expert. The Forensic Science Laboratory Hyderabad examined the will and opined that the will deed is a forged one. Thereupon, the 2nd respondent herein filed a complaint before the II Addl. Judicial Magistrate’s Court, Eluru. The said complaint came to be forward to the Station House Officer, Bhimadolu P.S., who registered the same as a case in Cr.No. 117/1999 U/Sec. 465, 467, 120- B r/w. 34 IPC and issued First Information Report. During the course of investigation, he examined five witnesses including the Joint Director, Forensic Science Laboratory, Hyderabad. After due investigation, a charge sheet came to be presented before the Addl. Judicial I Class Magistrate, Eluru. The learned Magistrate took the charge sheet on file as CC No. 347 of 2006. The petitioners, who are A-2 to A5 in CC No. 347 of 2006, approached this Court invoking the inherent powers of this Court U/Sec. 482 Cr.P.C. with a prayer stated supra. 4. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and perused the material brought on record. 5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the finding recorded by the Civil Court in OS No. 15 of 1987 with regard to the will propounded by the petitioners 1 to 4 herein has been challenged by filing an appeal being AS No. 2684 of 1999 and the said appeal is pending disposal. He further submitted that the defacto complainant also filed an appeal and the same is pending as AS No. 876 of 1999. According to the learned counsel, since the findings recorded by the trial court are required to be scrutinised by the appellate court, no finality can be given to the findings of the trial court, in which case continuation of criminal proceedings pursuant to the complaint lodged by the defacto complainant amounts to abuse of process of court. In support of his submission, reliance has been placed on the Judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Tukaram Annaba Chavan and another Vs. Machindra Yeshwant Patil and another [1] 6. The powers possessed by the High Court U/Sec. 482 Cr.P.C. are very wide and the very plentitude of the power requires great caution in its exercise, court must be careful to see that its decision in exercise of this power is based on sound principle. This inherent power should not be exercised to stifle a legitimate prosecution. 7. The proceedings can be quashed only where the complaint does not disclose any offence or is frivolous, vexation or oppressive, but a meticulous analysis of the case, to find out whether the case would end in conviction, is not called for. There is no hard and fast rule, no straight jacket formula and no rigid test which must apply to every application U/Sec. 482 Cr.P.C. Every case is to be divided in the context of its particular facts and circumstances and the predominant concern of the court is to be secure the ends of justice and to prevent an abuse of process of court. 8. The respondent No.2 herein presented a complaint after the civil court recorded a finding that the will propounded by the petitioners herein is a rank forgery. When the complaint is presented basing on the findings recorded by the civil court and more so, when an expert, who has examined the document, has been examined as a witness, during the investigation, it is not desirable to interdict the proceedings in CC No. 347 of 2006 in exercise of inherent powers U/Sec. 482 Cr.P.C. 9. Accordingly, the criminal petition is dismissed. The interim Stay granted on 01-05-2008 shall stand vacated. However, the trial court is directed to dispose of CC No. 347 of 2006 on the file of the II Addl. Judicial First Class Magistrate, Eluru, West Godavari District uninfluenced by any of the observations made by this Court for the purpose of disposal of this petition. ____________ 08-07-2010 Mjl/* HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY CRIMINAL PETITION No. 3107 of 2007 Dated: 08-07-2010 Mjl/* [1] 200(1)ALT(Crl.) 154(SC)