THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B. CHANDRA KUMAR Criminal Petition No. 4032 of 2010 Order: This Criminal Petition, under Section 482 Cr.P.C., is filed by the petitioner/accused seeking to quash the proceedings in Crime No.120 of 2010 of RGI Airport Shamshabad Police Station, R.R. District. The respondents 2 and 3 herein are the sisters of the petitioner herein. The father of the petitioner and respondents 2 and 3, namely late Panthulu Kishtaiah died on 11.01.1997. He was the owner of Ac.32-00 of land in Survey Nos.39, 45, 48, 50, 53, 60 and 61 of Devuni Bavi, Nagaram village, Maheshwaram Mandal, R.R. District. The respondents 2 and 3 along with their other sisters filed O.S. No.647 of 2007 on the file of the II Additional District Judge, R.R. District, against the petitioner herein and another for partition of the above said lands. The petitioner herein filed a written statement claiming that his father executed a Will on 02.04.1992 bequeathing his entire property in favour of the petitioner. The case of the respondents 2 and 3 is that the alleged Will is a rank forgery and that on the alleged date of execution of the Will they and their other sisters were present with their father in their house on the eve of certain ceremonies in connection with the marriage of the second respondent held on 29.03.1992 and that under no circumstances their father could have executed the Will on 02.04.1992. It is also their case that their father, during his life time, executed a registered sale deed on 25.09.1981, bearing document No.1001/1981 before the Sub-Registrar, Ibrahimpatnam, R.R. District when he alienated Ac.2-30 guntas of land in Survey No.48 in favour of one Palimamidi Narsimha and that they obtained a copy of the said sale deed which bears the signature of their father and when the signature of their father found in the said sale deed dated 25.09.1981 is compared with the signature of their father in the alleged Will dated 02.04.1992, it became clear to them that the alleged Will dated 02.04.1992 is a rank forgery. Therefore, they filed the complaint under Section 200 Cr.P.C., which has been made over to the police for investigation who registered a case in Crime No.120 of 2010 for the offences punishable under Sections 468, 403, 420, 406 and 506 read with 34 IPC. The main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner/accused is that the dispute is of a civil nature and therefore the FIR has to be quashed. It is also his submission that when the civil suit has been pending between the parties the genuineness or otherwise of the Will, will be decided in the civil suit. It is also submitted that the petitioner never intended to cheat the respondents 2 and 3 and therefore the ingredients of Section 420 IPC have not been made out. In support of his contention, he has relied on a decision of this Court reported in M.A. Gaffar and others v. State of A.P and another[1]. Sri Wasim Ahmed Khan, learned counsel for the respondents 2 and 3, submitted that this is a clear case of forgery and the respondents 2 and 3 after verifying the signatures of their father on the registered sale deed dated 25.09.1981 as well as on the alleged Will dated 02.04.1992 and having found that the alleged signature of their father in the Will dated 02.04.1992 is a rank forgery and having regard to the fact that their father was with them on the alleged date of Will and there was no possibility of his executing the Will, filed the complaint. He has also relied on the judgments reported in M. Narayandas v. State of Karnataka[2] and Medchl Chemicals and Pharma Private Limited v. Biological E. Limited and others[3]. The only point that arises for consideration is whether the FIR issued on the basis of the complaint lodged by the respondents 2 and 3 is liable to be quashed. The settled legal position is that where the allegations made in the complaint or charge sheet does not disclose the essential ingredients of an offence which is alleged against the accused, then the Court may quash the complaint. The Apex Court in Smt. Nagawwa v. Veeranna Shivalingappa Konjalgi (1976 (3) SCC 736) summarized the position of law as follows. 1. Where the allegations made in the complaint or the statements of the witnesses recorded in support of the same taken at their face value make out absolutely no case against the accused or the complaint does not disclose the essential ingredients of an offence which is alleged against the accused; 2. Where the allegations made in the complaint are patently absurd and inherently improbable so that no prudent person can ever reach a conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused; 3. Where the discretion exercised by the Magistrate in issuing process is capricious and arbitrary having been bases either on no evidence or on materials which are wholly irrelevant or inadmissible; and 4. Where the complaint suffers from fundamental legal defects, such as, want of sanction, or absence of a complaint by legally Competent Authority and the like. A reading of the complaint lodged by the respondents 2 and 3 prima facie gives an impression that it cannot be said that no offence of forgery has been made out from the contents of the complaint. There are two circumstances alleged by the respondents 2 and 3, first is that the signature of their father on the alleged Will dated 02.04.1992 is not tallying with the signature of their father on the registered sale deed executed by him on 21.05.1981 and the another circumstance alleged by the respondents 2 and 3 is that on the alleged date of Will all the sisters were with their father. The said two circumstances reveal that there is a prima facie case against the petitioner herein. Therefore, the same has to be investigated and the truth or otherwise of the allegation has to be established. It is true that a civil suit is pending between the parties. Sri Wasim Ahmed Khan, learned counsel for the respondents 2 and 3, has taken me through the judgment of the Apex Court in M. Narayandas v. State of Karnataka (2 supra). In fact, in that case, the appellant filed a suit against the respondents 2 to 4 for permanent injunction and the respondents 2 to 4 therein filed a written statement wherein they relied upon three documents all dated 21st October 1989 and the appellant claimed that those documents were never executed by him and on his complaint a case for the offences under Sections 468, 470, 471 and 120-B IPC came to be registered. When the matter was taken to the High Court, the FIR was quashed. The Apex Court observed as follows. “The High Court takes into consideration certain photographs and other material produced by the respondents and concludes that the complaint was vexatious, frivolous and false and on this basis the High Court proceeds to quash the complaint and impose cost of Rs.10,000/- on the appellant”. The Apex Court further observed that; “The High Court does not conclude, as it could not have, that the allegations in the complaint do not disclose a cognizable offence justifying an investigation by the police officer. The conclusion of the High Court that the complaint was false, vexatious and frivolous is based on material produced by the respondents. One fails to understand how without evidence the High Court could have relied on this material. It is clear that the impugned order is totally unsustainable”. When it was argued that the matter is of civil nature or pending before the Civil Court, the Apex Court observed as follows. “We are unable to sustain the impugned order of the High Court quashing the FIR lodged against the respondents alleging commission of offences under Sections 419, 420, 467 and 468 IPC by them in course of the proceeding of a civil suit, on the ground that Section 195(1)(b)(ii) Cr.P.C prohibited entertainment of and investigation into the same by the police. From a plain reading of Section 195 Cr.P.C it is manifest that it comes into operation at the stage when the Court intends to take cognizance of an offence under Section 190(1) Cr.P.C and it has nothing to do with the statutory power of the police to investigate into an FIR which discloses a cognizable offence, in accordance with Chapter XII of the Code even if the offence is alleged to have been committed in, or in relation to, any proceedings in Court. In other words, the statutory power of the police to investigate under the Code is not in any way controlled or circumscribed by Section 195 Cr.P.C. It is of course true that upon the charge-sheet, if any, filed on completion of the investigation into such an offence the Court would not be competent to take cognizance thereof in view of the embargo of Section 195(1)(b) Cr.P.C but nothing therein deters the Court from filing a complaint for the offence on the basis of the FIR and the materials collected during investigation, provided it forms the requisite opinion and follows the procedure laid down in Section 340 Cr.P.C”. Reliance is also placed in Medchl Chemicals and Pharma Private Limited v. Biological E. Limited and others, wherein it was observed that merely because an act has a civil profile is not sufficient to denude it of its criminal outfit. In view of the same, I am of the view that when the allegations made in the complaint prima facie go to show that an offence has been made out which is cognizable, the same cannot be quashed and now the allegation whether the petitioner intends to cheat or not cannot be decided in these proceedings. Thus, I do not see any reason to quash the proceedings. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is dismissed. At this stage, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is a Government employee and if he is arrested, he may have some difficulty in his service. In the above circumstances and having regard to the relationship between the parties and the allegations made against the petitioner, the police concerned are directed not to arrest the petitioner till the date of filing of the charge sheet. Any observations made by this Court in this order will not come in the way of the lower Court deciding the matter on merits. ______________________ B. CHANDRA KUMAR, J. Date: 20.10.2011 Nsr [1] 2007 (1) ALD (Crl.) 811 (AP) [2] AIR 2004 SC 555 [3] 2000 (1) ALD (Crl.) 729 (SC)