IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE FIRST DAY OF MAY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH WRIT PETITION NO : 8316 of 2005 Between: 1 Darsi Gurnadham S/o Rosaiah R/o D. No. 41-2-5, Old Post Office Road, Krishna lanka, Vijayawada 2 Gatti Sambasiva Rao @ Siva S/o late Ram Mohan Rao Dr. No. 37-1-2, John Street, Badavapet, Vijayawada ..... PETITIONER(S) AND 1 Government of Andhra Pradesh, rep by Principal Secretary, Home Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad 2 The Director General Of Police, Lakadikapool, Hyderabad 3 The Commissioner of Police, ShaktiBuildings, Suryaraopet Vijayawada 4 The Station House Officer, Governerpet L&O Police Station Governerpet, Vijayawada 5 The Station House Officer, I-Town L&O Police Station Vijayawada 6 The Station House Officer, Suryaraopet L&O Police Station Suryaraopet, Vijayawada .....RESPONDENT(S) Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue a Writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of mandamus declaring theaction of the respondents in arresting the petitioners by foisting the case and implicating the petitioners as accused without any properinquiry and proof against them is illeal, arbitrary and unjust and unconstitutional and offendign article 14 of constitution of Inida and consequently direct the respondent No:1 to transfer all cases pending against the petitioners in this regard to the CBCID and pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.RAVI KUMAR TOLETY Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR HOME The Court made the following : ORDER: The petitioners seek to issue a writ of mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in arresting them by foisting the cases and implicating them as accused without proper inquiry and proof, as illegal and arbitrary. It is the case of the petitioners that the first petitioner is resident of Vijayawada and doing business under the name and style of “Guru Mess” at Vinayak Theatre, Vijayawada and the second petitioner is doing real estate business in Vijayawada. While so, the respondents implicated the petitioners as accused in Crime Nos.27 of 2004 and 4 of 2005 and they were arrested and latter released on bail. The petitioners also came to know that they were shown as accused in Crime No.11 of 2005 of Law and Order, I-Town Police Station, Vijayawada and Crime No.3 of 2005 of Law and Order, Suryaraopet, Vijayawada. It is the case of the petitioners that the allegations made against them in all the four cases are incorrect and false and they are only the sureties for obtaining the loans by the principal borrowers who are the other accused. It is stated that the petitioners are not at all connected with the so- called forged documents and they are not the parties and therefore, showing them as accused in all the four cases is illegal and arbitrary. A counter has been filed by the respondents stating that admittedly the petitioners are businessmen and they were accused in Crime Nos.27 of 2004 and 4 of 2005 of Law and Order, Suryaraopet Police Station showing them as accused Nos.7 and 8. The modus operandi of the petitioners is that they secure old empty stamp papers by fraudulent means, secure Xerox copies of original property documents by fraudulent means from innocent parties, create fake property documents with the help of old empty stamp papers, impress the fake rubber stamps of registrar offices concerned on the fake and manipulated property documents by putting forged signatures of authorities concerned, then they will approach business entrepreneur who is in need of money and make him to believe that they would provide bank loan with sureties on commission basis, they will select one person to impersonate as guarantor/surety for the fake document created by them as genuine owner of the property, they collude with bank management some times for the sanction of loan and after receiving loan, the amount will be shared among all the accused as per their conspiracy. It is further stated that in the present case also there was an allegation of receiving 25% commission out of Rs.8 lakhs. It is stated that the petitioners were arrested on 19.12.2004 and 18 fake rubber stamps with seals and impressions of Guntur Registrar Office from the possession of the second petitioner/Gatti Samba Siva Rao and 19 old and new empty stamp papers were also seized in the presence of mediators under a cover of mediator’s report. The rubber stamps were used for commission of offences in Guntur area and the petitioners were in possession of empty old and new stamp papers with an intent to commit further offences to cheat the banks with fake and manipulated title deeds and 7 photostat copies of property documents of different persons were also seized from the possession of the first petitioner/Darsi Gurunadham. It is stated that the petitioners also played same role in Crime No.4 of 2005 of Law and Order, Governorpet Police Station, Vijayawada city wherein A-1 got sanctioned a loan of Rs.20 lakhs from the bank and based on the complaints, the first information reports were issued against them and the cases are under investigation. It is further stated that there is prima facie evidence under Sections 420, 464, 467, 468, 471, 472 r/w 120(b) IPC against the petitioners and therefore, cases have been registered against them. Therefore, it cannot be said that there was no proper investigation by the police concerned. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and in view of the averments made in the counter, I do not see any lapses on the part of the respondents in investigating and registering the crimes against the petitioners and the petitioners cannot prevent the investigating officers in exercising their statutory duties. Having regard to the facts of the case, the writ petition is devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed with costs. ______________ V.ESWARAIAH, J. Date:01.05.2008 Ccm To 1.2CCs to 2.2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{TRT}