HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL PETITION NOs.7671 OF 2007 & 233 OF 2008 DATE:15.07.2010 CRIMINAL PETITION NO.7671 OF 2007 Between: Kandula Murali …… Petitioner. And: The State, rep. by Public Prosecutor, High Court of AP., Hyderabad and another …..Respondents. CRIMINAL PETITION NO.233 OF 2008 Between: Kuna Raja …… Petitioner. And: The State, rep. by Public Prosecutor, High Court of AP., Hyderabad and another …..Respondents. HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL PETITION NOs.7671 OF 2007 & 233 OF 2008 COMMON ORDER: 1. The petitioners in these two petitions are A-1 and A-2 in Crime No.296 of 2007 of II Town Police Station, Srikakulam. They are accused of offences punishable under Sections 468, 471 IPC. A-2 is Advocate for A-1 in M.O.P.No.22 of 2005 on the file of Additional Senior Civil Judge, Srikakulam. The 2nd respondent/defacto-complainant is wife of A-1. Between A-1 and the 2nd respondent MOP No.22 of 2005 was pending for divorce. There is order of payment of interim maintenance of Rs.3,400/- in MOP No.22 of 2005 to the 2nd respondent by A-1. Subject- matter of this crime is a memo filed by A-1 and A-2 put together in Additional Senior Civil Judge court, Srikakulam to the effect that Advocate for the 2nd respondent herein received interim maintenance amount of Rs.3,400/- from A-1. That memo is said to contain signature of the 2nd respondent’s Advocate in M.O.P.No.22 of 2005. There is dispute with regard to signature of the 2nd respondent’s counsel on that memo and receipt of Rs.3,400/- thereunder by the 2nd respondent’s counsel from A-1. The Additional Senior Civil Judge, Srikakulam found that it has to be decided by the Magistrate or the police. So he addressed a letter to the Magistrate who in turn forwarded the same to the police. 2. It is contended by the petitioner’s counsel that there is no forgery of signature of Advocate for the 2nd respondent on that memo and that in any event, as per allegations of the 2nd respondent, it was A-1 who is stated to have forged her Advocate’s signature on that memo. Who forged signature of the 2nd respondent’s counsel and whether there is really any forgery or not on that memo, are matters to be investigated into by the police. Simply because some allegation is made by the 2nd respondent about forgery of her counsel’s signature on the memo, A-2 who is Advocate for A-1 cannot be straight away arrested or proceeded with. At the same time, A-2 being an Advocate cannot prevent investigation being made by the police on forgery in the above memo. The disputed memo contains signature of A-2 also. Since A-2 is a signatory to the memo, it is for him to explain under what circumstances he signed therein and whether the 2nd respondent’s counsel signed on the memo before him or not. Since A-2 had counter signed the memo, he cannot avoid investigation of this crime, particularly when the alleged offence is stated to have been committed in a court of law. Therefore, I see no merits in these two petitions. 3. In the result, both the petitions are dismissed. However, since A- 2 is stated to be an Advocate, the police may not arrest him during investigation. After investigation, if the police find material to file charge sheet, then the police are at liberty to do so by following the procedure prescribed under Section 170 Cr.P.C. __________________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU,J. Date:15.07.2010. Gk. HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL PETITION NOs.7671 OF 2007 & 233 OF 2008 Date:15.07.2010 Gk.