IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRAPRADESH AT HYDERABAD HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.2172 of 2009 DATE:29.06.2010 Between: Shaik Abdul Rafeeq @ S.A.Rafeeq …… Petitioner/Accused And: The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. By The Public Prosecutor. …..Respondent HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.2172 of 2009 ORDER: The petitioner/A-1 questions order dated 30.11.2009 passed by the VIII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad in Crl.M.P.No.3922 of 2009 in C.C. No.335 of 2007 by which the lower Court dismissed the petition filed by A-1 under Sections 245/239 Cr.P.C. refusing to discharge him. Subject matter of the crime is agreement for sale dated 08.10.2002 said to have been executed by the defacto-complainant in favour of A-1 and his brothers. The defacto-complainant questions his signature on the disputed agreement for sale. A-7 is the stamp vendor who is stated to have sold Rs.100/- stamp paper to A-1, on which stamp paper and three other papers the disputed document is said to have been forged and fabricated. Before filing the charge sheet, the investigating officer obtained original disputed agreement for sale from the civil Court and sent the same to Forensic Science Laboratory, Hyderabad for comparison of signatures of the executants, stamp vendor and also rubber stamp of the stamp vendor. The Forensic Science Laboratory after making comparison of the disputed signatures etc., with standard signatures supplied by the investigating officer, came to the conclusion that signature in the disputed document is not that of the defacto- complainant. Further, the investigating officer collected evidence to show that A-7 sold the stamp paper to A-1 without entering the same into his registers. According to the defacto-complainant, stamp paper used for the disputed document is a fake one and was not issued by Hayathnagar Sub-Treasury. Evidence was also collected by the investigating officer on that aspect. Apart from that, there is oral statement of the defacto-complainant to the effect that the disputed document does not contain his signatures. Having regard to all the above material collected during investigation and produced before the lower Court, it cannot be said that it is not a case for framing charge against A- 1. 2) No doubt civil suit filed by A-1 and others is pending against the defacto-complainant on the basis of the disputed document. Simply because there is civil suit pending, in which suit the disputed document is the document in issue, it cannot be said that this criminal case is purely of civil nature. 3) It is further contended that in the absence of proof of forgery, the prosecution cannot make out prima facie case for offence under Section 468 I.P.C. Definitions of forgery and making a false document contained in Sections 463 and 464 I.P.C include making of a false document apart from forging signatures, seal etc., Therefore, it is a matter for appreciation of evidence whether A-1 made the false document with an intention to cheat the defacto-complainant with reference to his property. Having regard to all the material on record, this Court is of the opinion that there is no infirmity in the order passed by the lower Court. 4) Hence, the revision petition is dismissed. _______________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU, J June 29, 2010 KSH