THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY CRIMINAL PETITION No.10314 of 2010 ORDER: 1 This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C seeking to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.692 of 2010 on the file of the Court of The IX Metropolitan Magistrate, Kukatpally. The petitioner is charge sheeted for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 468 and 471 of IPC. 2 The second respondent herein has lodged the complaint before the police on 18.03.2009 stating that he has borrowed an amount of Rs.1,60,000/- from the petitioner and kept the document pertaining to the land which is in the name of his wife, towards security. It is stated that after ten months he has paid back the amount with interest totalling to Rs.3,25,000/- In spite of the same, the petitioner did not return the documents and that the petitioner forged the signature of the wife of the second respondent and created false document and thereafter he transferred the said property in the name of his wife by executing a gift deed. 3 The aforesaid complaint was initially made before the police Kukatpally. But on the ground of jurisdiction, subsequently it was transferred to P.S. Miyapur. After completing investigation and after examining several witnesses, final report has been field charging the petitioner for the offences referred above. 4 In this Criminal Petition it is the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner that no details of forgery of the document were given in the complaint and no report of an expert is obtained before charging the petitioner for the offence of forgery. It is submitted that all the allegations are false and no case is made out to proceed against the petitioner for the alleged offences. 5 After completing the investigation and after examining the relevant witnesses, the police filed the final report in the Court below alleging that the petitioner has committed the offences punishable under Sections 420, 468 and 471 of IPC. If there is no report of an expert on the allegation of forgery, that may be a good defence for the petitioner to plead ignorance before the trial court. But the same is not a ground for quashing the proceedings at this stage. From a perusal of the final report, it is clear that the petitioner got the property belonging to the wife of the second respondent transferred into his name without proper documents and he had also transferred the same in favour of his wife by way of a gift deed. In that view of the matter, and in view of the allegations made against the petitioner, it is a matter for trial. But the mere statement made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, that the allegations are all false, is no ground to quash the proceedings at this stage. 6 For the aforesaid reasons, I do not find any merit in this Criminal Petition to quash the proceedings in exercise of powers under section 482 of Cr.P.C. Accordingly, this Criminal Petition is dismissed. --------------------------------- R.SUBHASH REDDY, J. 21.12.2011 Kvsn