HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.29036 of 2010 Date: 30th December 2010 Between : M.Harinarayana @ Haribabu. ….Petitioner And The learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class (Prohibition and Excise), Kadapa & others. ….Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.29036 of 2010 ORDER : This writ petition is filed, seeking a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records relating to C.C.No.88 of 2010 on the file of the 1st responent-Judicial Magistrate of First Class (Prohibition and Excise), Kadapa, and to quash the same. 2. The petitioner herein is the accused in C.C.No.88 of 2010 pending trial on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class (Prohibition and Excise), Kadapa. He was charge-sheeted in Crime No.79 of 2006 for the offences under Sections 447, 427, 464, 465, 468, 471 read with 34 of I.P.C., by the I-Town Police Station, Kadapa. The 5th respondent herein is the owner of a cinema theatre by name “Venkateswara Picture Palace”, which is presently renamed as “Sandhya Theatre”, located at R.S.road, Kadapa. She intended to sell the same to accused No.1 for Rs.64,00,000/-, and entered into an agreement of sale on 28th of March 2001, to that effect. As per the terms of agreement, after receiving the advance, the balance amount of Rs.38,88,000/- was to be paid in 3 instalments with an intervening period of 3 months for each instalment. The 5th respondent in her complaint lodged before the Police, stated that as the balance amount was not paid, she has not executed the sale deed in favour of the petitioner, and a legal notice was issued on behalf of petitioner herein, on 28.07.2002, and the same was replied to by reply notice, dated 06.08.2002. It is alleged that the accused No.1, in collusion with accused Nos.2 and 3, prepared a false document on Rs.500/- stamp paper by forging the signature of respondent No.5, as if an amount of Rs.4,03,000/- was paid on 18.09.2002 and possession was handed over to the petitioner. It is stated that based on the alleged plea of possession, the petitioner filed a suit for specific performance in O.S.No.44 of 2002 and obtained interim injunction orders in I.A.No.3948 of 2002 on the file of the learned I-Additional District Judge, Kadapa, and trespassed into the premises by break-opening the locks and forcibly occupied the theatre by damaging the furniture. It is alleged that the suit was contested by respondent No.5 herein and the disputed document was sent for forensic expert, who opined that the document was fabricated. Subsequently, the suit was dismissed and in view of the finding of the Civil Court that the disputed document was not executed by respondent No.5, alleging forgery, she has filed a complaint before the Superintendent of Police, who in turn, endorsed to the Police Station, based upon which, a case is registered in Crime No.79 of 2006 and after making investigation, a final report was filed, charging the petitioner and two others that they have forged the signature of respondent No.5 and thus cheated her, and also criminally trespassed into the theatre, as such, they are liable for punishment for the offences referred above. 3. When the investigation was in progress in Crime No.79 of 2006, the petitioner and other accused Nos.2 and 3 have filed a criminal petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., for quashing of the proceedings, and the same was also ended in dismissal. 4. In this writ petition, the petitioner pleads that he has paid a total amount of Rs.91,49,210/-, which is in excess of the agreed amount of Rs.64,00,000/-, by Rs.27,49,210/-, but inspite of the same, the suit in O.S.No.44 of 2002 was fraudulently dismissed by the 3rd respondent by discrediting the evidence of PW-2, due to casteism, as the 5th respondent and the 3rd respondent belong to the same caste. It is stated that the 5th respondent has submitted a false complaint on 11.05.2006 to the 4th respondent former Superintendent of Police, Kadapa, alleging forgery of her signature and trespass, who has fraudulently directed the Sub-Inspector of Police, I-Town Police Station, to register a case of forgery and criminal trespass. It is pleaded that such a complaint is taken on file in C.C.No.167 of 2008 initially by the I-Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kadapa, which is transferred and re- numbered as C.C.No.88 of 2010 on the file of Judicial Magistrate of First Class (Prohibition and Excise), due to the undue influence of the 4th respondent former Superintendent of Police, Kadapa. On the aforesaid grounds, the petitioner pleads for quashing of the criminal proceedings initiated against him. 5. In this case, it is to be seen that based on the agreement of sale, seeking specific performance, the petitioner has already approached the Civil Court. In the Civil Court, his claim for specific performance is rejected, basing on the oral and documentary evidence on record and also taking into account the opinion of the forensic expert on the disputed signatures on the document which is stated to have been created by the petitioner in proof of payment of Rs.4,03,000/- and also with a recital for delivery of possession of the theatre in question to the petitioner. If the petitioner is of the view that any evidence in the said suit is not properly considered, it is for him to pursue his appeal, but merely because he lost in the suit, he is not expected to make wild and untenable allegations against the Judicial officers and the former Superintendent of Police, Kadapa. The allegation of the petitioner that the judgment went against him only on caste lines, appears to be a baseless and wild allegation made for the purpose of maintaining the writ petition. Based on the opinion of the forensic expert and other evidence on record, the suit was dismissed. Merely because the suit went against him, the petitioner seems to have made wild and reckless allegations against the respondents. Moreover, a perusal of the final report filed under Section 173 Cr.P.C., which is filed in the material papers by the petitioner, indicate that the preliminary investigation revealed forgery of the signature of respondent No.5 and trespass, as alleged. In that view of the matter, whether an offence is committed or not, is to be decided only after trial, but when the petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is dismissed and the matter is pending trial, the petitioner is not entitled for the relief as prayed for in the present writ petition. It has become the order of the day, when a claim is decided against by a Civil Court or any other Forum, to make such persons as parties in person and make wild allegations. Such an attitude is nothing short of gross abuse of the process and this writ petition is one such petition, which is to be rejected by imposing exemplary costs. 6. For the aforesaid reasons, I do not find any merit in this writ petition, to admit the same. The writ petition is dismissed with costs of Rs.25,000/-. __________________ R.SUBHASH REDDY, J 30th December 2010 ajr