IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRAPRADESH AT HYDERABAD HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL PETITION No.1138 of 2006 DATE:01.06.2010 Between: Kaligotla Venkateswara Rao …… Petitioner/Accused. And: The State of A.P., rep. By Public Prosecutor and another. …..Respondents HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL PETITION No.1138 of 2006 ORDER: This petition is filed by the 3rd accused under Section 482 Cr.P.C for quashing proceedings in C.C. No.77 of 2003 on the file of Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Kothavalasa relating to offences punishable under Sections 420, 465, 467/34 I.P.C. Originally private complaint filed by the 2nd respondent/defacto- complainant was referred to the police for investigation under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. After investigation, the police filed final report referring the case as one of civil nature. Thereupon, the 2nd respondent pursued his complaint in the lower Court and it was taken on file after due enquiry. 2) The 2nd respondent is original owner of the property of Ac.1-08 cents of land in S.No.197/2F of Kothavalasa. It is alleged that A-1 and A-2 entered into lease agreement with the 2nd respondent and took the 2nd respondent to the Sub-Registrar Office for registration of a lease deed, but ultimately the document was found to be a sale deed. After coming to know about the same, the 2nd respondent came away refusing to register the said document. After exchange of notices, the 2nd respondent took the present criminal proceedings against the accused. A-3 is stated to be scribe of the disputed document. So, he was also impleaded in the criminal case. 3) A-1 and A-2 questioned the criminal case in this Court by filing criminal petition No.1202 of 2004 under Section 482 Cr.P.C. This Court by the order dated 18.04.2005 in Crl.P.No.1202 of 2004 allowed the same quashing proceedings in C.C. No.77 of 2003 of the lower Court in so far as A-1 and A-2 are concerned. For the same reasons mentioned therein and having regard to judicial consistency, the petitioner/A-3 is also entitled for relief herein. It is contended that no specific allegations are made against A-3 except the fact of he scribing the disputed document. 4) It is stated by both the parties that as against order dated 18.04.2005 in Crl.P.No.1202 of 2004, the 2nd respondent/defacto- complainant filed S.L.P in the Supreme Court of India and that it is pending. There is no stay of disposal of this matter pertaining to A-3. Except he being a document writer, who scribed the document on instructions of either of the parties or both the parties, he has no role to play and he did not gain anything except his remuneration. 5) Hence, the petition is allowed quashing proceedings in C.C. No.77 of 2003 on the file of Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Kothavalasa in so far as the petitioner/A-3 is concerned. _______________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU, J June 1, 2010 KSH