HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL PETITION No.3954 OF 2009 DATE:27.08.2010 Between: D. Shekar Rao and another …… Petitioners. And: The State of A.P., rep. by its PP., High Court of AP., Hyderabad. …..Respondent HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL PETITION No.3954 OF 2009 ORDER: 1. The petitioners 1 and 2/A-1 and A-2 are accused of offences punishable under Sections 420, 468, 471, 120-B, 109 IPC in C.C.No.402 of 2009 on the file of Additional Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Sangareddy. The 2nd respondent is the defacto-complainant. A-2 is wife of A-1. The 2nd respondent is son of A-1’s sister. Dispute between A-1 and the 2nd respondent is with regard to assigned agricultural land of Ac.5.00 in S.No.856 of Rudraram village. It is alleged that the said land was assigned to A-1’s father B. Kishan Rao who served in the Indian Army during his life time. B. Kishan Rao was having four daughters and five sons. It is alleged that A-1 and A-2 in order to knock away the said land by taking advantage of settlement of his brothers and sisters outside the State of Andhra Pradesh, got that land mutated in his own name behind back of his brothers and sisters and that when Rajitha, another sister of A-1 was suffering from Cancer during the year 2002, brothers and sisters of A-1 including A-1 decided to sell the said land in order to provide financial assistance to Rajitha for her treatment and that in pursuance of the said decision, A-1 executed General Power of Attorney on 09.07.2004 in favour of the 2nd respondent and that after death of Rajitha in April, 2005, all family members decided to sell the said land and pay sale consideration to Rajitha’s husband to meet debts incurred by him for treatment of Rajitha and that the 2nd respondent’s sister purchased the said land on 27.11.2005 under registered sale deed when the 2nd respondent executed the registered sale deed on the strength of General Power of Attorney deed, after receiving sale consideration of Rs.1,00,000/- from his sister. 2. It is complaint of the 2nd respondent that A-1 and A-2 conspired together and hatched up a plan to extract huge amount or to get back the said land and fabricated two documents viz., General Power of Attorney deed dated 12.12.2001 and its cancellation deed dated 07.11.2005 at Bangalore and that both the said documents were never in existence and that they were brought on record for the purpose of filing fictitious civil and criminal cases by using those documents as genuine. A reading of these allegations do not disclose any crime committed by A- 1 muchless against the 2nd respondent. There is no cheating committed by any of the accused as against the 2nd respondent because no amount was received by A-1 or A-2 from the 2nd respondent much less in a dishonest way nor there was any fraudulent representation by the accused to the 2nd respondent. It is not stated in the charge sheet as to in whose name General Power of Attorney dated 12.12.2001 was fabricated. Both the General Power of Attorney deed dated 12.12.2001 as well as its cancellation deed dated 07.11.2005 were stated to have been executed by A-1 only. It is not a case of forgery. There can be no fabrication of a document by the executant himself. It is not stated in what manner and in what respect there is fabrication in those two documents. Admittedly, civil suit is pending between the parties with regard to above land of Ac.5.00 before a civil court. In the absence of any forgery or fabrication of any document, Section 468 IPC has no application herein. It is not stated in which proceeding those documents were used by the accused as genuine documents. If they are filed in civil court, then it is for the civil court to decide relevancy and reliability in that civil suit. Reading of entire contents of the charge sheet filed by the police and the original complaint filed by the 2nd respondent in the lower court, which complaint was referred to the police for investigation under Sections 156(3) Cr.P.C, I do not find necessary allegations which attract the case for forgery as defined under Section 463 IPC or making a false document as per Section 464 IPC. 3. Further, A-2 is not a party to any of the General Power of Attorney deed or its cancellation deed. It is evident that A-2 was unnecessarily impleaded as accused person with a view to harass her without any basis and if possible with a view to arm-twist both the accused for some compromise in the civil suit and also in criminal case filed by A-1 against the 2nd respondent and her brother. This Court finds that filing of this case against A-2 is nothing short of abuse of process of law. 4. In the result, the petition is allowed quashing proceedings in C.C.No.402 of 2009 on the file of Additional Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Sangareddy. ___________________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU, J August 27, 2010 Gk. HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL PETITION No.3954 OF 2009 Date: 27.08.2010 Gk.