THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA W.P. No. 18953 of 2010 Oral order: The petitioners, who are two in number, are accused in crime, registered as F.I.R. No. 190 of 2010 on the file of respondent No.1, namely Anantapur II Town Police Station, on 09.06.2010, based on the complaint lodged by respondent No.2. To quash the said F.I.R., the petitioners filed the present writ petition. A few facts that are necessary for the disposal of the writ petition may be noted, and they run thus: Respondent No.2 along with M. Rajagopal, A. Surendra Babu and K. Mahender Reddy, entered into a partnership in the name and style of S.R. Minerals, under partnership deed dated 06.12.2003, for carrying business in mining. They have also obtained mining lease in an extent of 18 hectares in reserve forest area in Bellary in Sy. No.1 (P) of Malapanagudi village, D. Hirehal Mandal, vide G.O. Ms. No. 114, dated 26.10.2005. The petitioners state they were included in the partnership. While so, with the alleged approval of the partners, four persons, namely P. Shilpa Reddy, P. Nagini Reddy, S.R.C. Kishore Reddy and D. Sambasiva Rao, were inducted into the partnership, on 04.06.2010. However, the petitioners state that respondent No.2, stating that he found that the certificate dated 07.06.2010 issued by the District Registrar, Anantapur, with whom the partnership/modified partnership deed was registered, included the names of the petitioners herein, namely T. Balan and Ajita Balan, as partners in the place of M. Rajagopal and K. Mahender Reddy, and that the exclusion of the said two persons from the partnership and including of the petitioners in their place, is without his knowledge and express consent and approval of all other partners and that the signatures of his and other partners were forged by the petitioners and that the modified partnership deed was fabricated, lodged a complaint before respondent No.1 against the petitioners, and based on such complaint, respondent No.1 registered a crime against the petitioners, which was registered as F.I.R. No. 190 of 2010 on 09.06.2010. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners were admitted into the partnership, but due to certain disputes among the partners, respondent No.2 lodged a complaint, based on which respondent No.1 registered the present F.I.R., and he contends that since the complaint lodged by respondent No.2 against them arises out of civil disputes, and does not make out any commission of any offence, the present writ petition to quash the same is maintainable as otherwise, it would amount to abuse of process of law. He further submitted that even though this Court refused to quash the F.I.R. proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C., but the same would not operate as res judicata, against the petitioners to maintain the writ petition, filed to quash the very same F.I.R. In support of this argument, he placed reliance on a judgment dated 19.04.2000 of the Division Bench of this Court in Criminal Petition No. 966 of 1999. Hence, he prayed that the impugned F.I.R. be quashed and the writ petition be allowed. Respondent No.1 filed two counters, one is dated 10.08.2010 and the other is dated 30.08.2010. The learned Government Pleader for Home appearing on behalf of respondent No.1, submitted that based on the complaint lodged by respondent No.2 that the petitioners by forging their signatures fabricated modified partnership document by excluding the names of two partners and including their names in their place in the partnership deed, which was entered into in the name and style of S.R. Minerals, for doing business in mines, respondent No.1 registered a crime against the petitioners and three others in F.I.R. No. 190 of 2010 for the offences punishable under Sections 419 and 420 I.P.C., on 09.06.2010. Upon the crime being registered, the petitioners filed Criminal Petition No.6739 of 2010, and obtained surrender bail orders dated 20.08.2010. She submitted that in connection with the said crime, accused No. 5 obtained anticipatory bail, accused No.3 was arrested and remanded in judicial custody, while accused No.4 is yet to be arrested. She also brought to the notice of this Court that the petitioners instead of surrendering, filed Criminal Petition No.7003 of 2010, seeking quashing of the present F.I.R., but this Court, by order dated 19.07.2010, refused to quash the F.I.R. and dismissed the criminal petition holding that the Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C., has no jurisdiction to go into the reliability and genuineness of the allegations made in the F.I.R. and it is the prerogative of the Investigating Officer to verify the same. However, after dismissal of the same, the petitioners filed the present writ petition paying to quash the F.I.R., which is liable to be dismissed. Hence, she submitted that the present writ petition be dismissed. The learned counsel for respondent No.2 reiterated the stand taken by the learned Government Pleader for Home appearing on behalf of respondent No.1. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Government Pleader for Home for respondent No.1 and the learned counsel for respondent No.2. As can be seen from the material placed by respondent No.1 before this Court, the petitioner has already invoked the criminal jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. by filing Criminal Petition No. 7003 of 2010, seeking quashing of the present F.I.R. A learned judge of this Court, after hearing the counsel for the petitioners, by order dated 19.07.2010 dismissed the same holding that F.I.R. was registered against the petitioners on the basis of cognizable offence and that the Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has no jurisdiction to go into the reliability and genuineness of the allegations in the F.I.R. and that it is the prerogative of the Investigating Officer to verify the same, and directed the Investigating Officer to verify the genuineness and reliability of the allegations made in the complaint and file charge sheet or final report. When this Court, upon looking into the allegations in the F.I.R. refused to quash the same on the criminal side in exercise of power under Section 482 Cr.P.C., I fail to understand how the petitioners can invoke the public law remedy by filing the present writ petition to quash the very-same F.I.R. which was refused to be quashed on the criminal side. The conduct of the petitioners in filing the present writ petition to quash the present F.I.R. after their futile attempts to get the same quashed on the criminal side, clearly suggests that they are abusing the process of law, and want to delay the investigation of the crime, on one pretext or the other, which cannot be permitted. For the foregoing reasons, this Court find no merit in the writ petition, and the same is accordingly dismissed. No costs. _________________ N.V. RAMANA, J. Dated: 21st September, 2010. KSR