IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD TUESDAY, THE THIRTIETH (30TH) DAY OF NOVEMBER, TWO THOUSAND AND TEN Present: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY Crl.P.No.3259 of 2010 Between: Shiga Venkataiah … Petitioner And: V. Jagan Mohan Reddy & another .... Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY Crl.P.No.3259 of 2010 ORDER: This petition is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing the investigation in Cr.No.214 of 2010 of L.B. Nagar L&O PS, Cyberabad district, against the petitioner-A.2. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the first respondent-complainant. Perused the record. 3. The first respondent herein filed a complaint before the learned II Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad, which was referred to the police under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., where upon, FIR in Cr.No.214 of 2010 was registered for the offences under Sections 447, 420, 468 and 506 of IPC. The investigation is pending. According to the complainant, his father Pratap Reddy purchased four acres of land in Sy.No.49/5 of Bahadurguda village from Smt. Leela Bai through registered sale deed dated 31.01.1966 and converted the land into residential plots by obtaining lay out permission from the Grampanchayat and alienated some of the plots in favour of third parties and retained plot Nos.31 and 32. He died on 10.06.2003 leaving behind him the complainant, his brother and sisters, who succeeded to the said property. The complainant alleges that on 08.12.2009 when he went to the said plots by engaging labour for construction of a room, the petitioner-A.2 along with his henchmen came there and interfered with the work of the complainant stating that he purchased the plots from A.1, who in turn purchased from the father of the complainant. The complainant alleges that the signature on the sale deed purported to have been executed by the father of the complainant is bogus, fabricated and created. According to him, his father had not alienated the property in favour of A.1 and A.2 does not got any title from A.1. He also alleges that the registration endorsement does not bear the thumb impression of his father and it is also fabricated. The petitioner-A.2 would contend that A.1 purchased the property in 1966 and from him, he purchased in the year 1997 and the complainant’s father died on 10.06.2003 and during the life time of the complainant’s father, there was no dispute raised and only after his death, the complainant is making a false claim due to increase in the land value. He would further contend that questioning the validity of the sale deed and registration that took place 40 years back in favour of A.1, is clear abuse of process of law. The petitioner also contends that he filed suit OS No.2349 of 2009 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy district for permanent injunction against the complainant and his men and after receiving the notices in the said suit, the present complaint is filed. 4. Having regard to the nature of the offences alleged and particularly, the allegation that the signature of the complainant’s father found on the sale deed executed in favour of A.1 is forged and registration endorsement is also fabricated, it is considered that the matter requires detailed investigation to find out the truth or otherwise of the said allegation. Even assuming that the complaint is filed after receipt of the notices in the suit by the petitioner-A.2, the same cannot be construed as abuse of process of law, especially, when specific allegation requiring investigation have been made. 5. It is well settled that the inherent powers of the Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. cannot be invoked to thwart further investigation into a complaint, which makes specific allegations attracting prima- facie ingredients of the alleged offences. There are no valid or justifiable grounds to quash further investigation in Cr.No.214 of 2010 of LB Nagar, L&O PS, Cyberabad district, by invoking the inherent powers of the Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. 6. In the result, the criminal petition is dismissed. ____________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J Date: 30.11.2010 bss