HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL PETITION No. 5409 of 2009 O R D E R: The Petitioner/A-3 is accused of offences punishable under Sections 468, 471, 506, 120-B IPC in Crime No. 1 of 2009 of Central Crime Station, Hyderabad. Private complaint filed by the 2nd respondent before the XI Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad was referred to the police for investigation under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. and thereupon the police registered the crime and took up investigation. 2. On perusal of the elaborate complaint filed by the 2nd respondent/defacto complainant which is the basis for issuing FIR, it is evident that all the allegations are made against A1 and A2 only and they are not petitioners herein. It is alleged that A1 and the 2nd respondent did joint business in purchasing of agricultural land, developing the same and sale of the same as house plots and that A-1 in collusion with A-2 sold away several plots while the 2nd respondent was residing in U.S.A. A-3 was a work contractor to whom development work was entrusted. It is alleged that even though agreement between A1 and A3 was only for Rs.78,97,600/-, A-1 gained unlawfully to the extent of an amount of Rs.92,62,400/- without knowledge of the 2nd respondent. Thus, collusion is alleged as against A-3 with A-1 in order to gain unlawfully the amount over and above the real development agreement for an amount of Rs.78,97,600/-. The role attributed to A-3 in this case is minor in nature. In spite of it, it is a matter which has to be investigated by the police about allegation of A-3 colluding with A-1 on this limited scope. Therefore, I do not find any valid or legal reasons to quash FIR in this case at its threshold. 3. In the result, the criminal petition is dismissed. However, the investigating Officer is directed not to arrest the petitioner/A-3 during investigation and until filing of charge sheet/final report. ____________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU, J 30-09-2010 Mjl/*