IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRL.P.NO.3588 OF 2010. Date:21.04.2010 Between:- Iqbal Bin Khalifa ..Petitioner/Accused And The State of A.P. through Public Prosecutor, A.P.High Court, Hyderabad and another. .. Respondents ORDER:- The petitioner is accused of offence punishable under Section 384 I.P.C. in C.C.No.676 of 2008 on the file of Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad. It is alleged that the accused gave hand loan to the second respondent/defacto complainant and also gave his motor cycle to the second respondent and that subsequently, the accused forcibly obtained signatures of the second respondent in an agreement paper and also a blank paper by putting him under fear in order to extract loan amount and cost of motor cyle from the second respondent. 2. It is contended by the petitioner’s counsel that taking allegations mentioned in the charge sheet for granted, there is no offence under Section 384 I.P.C. made out because admittedly the second respondent took loan from the accused and also obtained motor cycle from the accused. 3. This is not a civil matter where consideration for the agreement will only be relevant. According to the prosecution allegations, the accused is stated to have obtained signatures of the second respondent on agreement paper as well as on a blank paper under threat and keeping him under fear. Truth or falsity of the said allegations cannot be gone into and decided in a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. It is a matter for evidence before the trial Court. 4. It is further contended by the petitioner’s counsel that even as per allegations in F.I.R. and statement of the second respondent, some police personnel are responsible for obtaining the second respondent’s signatures on agreement paper and blank paper and that they were not impleaded as accused in this case mischievously by the Investigating Officer. 5. Simply because the Investigating Officer did not implead some of the alleged accused persons in the charge sheet, it will not preclude the trial Court to implead other accused also in the case during the course of trial in case the Court finds that their presence is also necessary and required for the purpose of just disposal of the case. Failure to implead police personnel, who are said to have participated in the offence along with the accused, is no ground for quashing the charge sheet against the accused/petitioner. 6. Hence, the petition is dismissed. _​_________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU, J 21st April 2010 AMD