THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO CRIMINAL PETITION No.6403 of 2011 ORDER: Petitioners – accused 1 and 3 approach this Court by invoking the provisions under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. seeking to quash the proceedings against them in C.C.No.464 of 2011 on the file of the Skpecial Judicial Magistrate of First Class (Prohibition and Excise) Special Mobile Court, Kurnool, whereby the petitioners are facing trial for the offence punishable under Sections 420, 403, 465, 468 and 411 IPC. The allegations against the petitioners are as follows: “As part of investigation L.W.8 came to conclusion that the said Radha as A2 Ram Mohan Reddy as A3 and Osman as A6 are innocents in these transactions. Believing the words of A1, G.Radha purchased the plot 53 and again sold out it with the help of A1 in favour of Shamshad Begum (A3). She did not know the said Shamshad Begum is the wife of A1. The said Ram Mohan Reddy and Osman were also innocents who didn’t know any thing about the transactions. The accused A1 involved them as having role in these transactions. Accordingly, L.W.8 obtained APP’s opinion and eliminated them as accused in this case vide proceedings C.No.484/SDPO-K/2009 DT.22-08-09 of SDPO, Kurnool. L.W.8 examined the said G.Radha and G.Narasimha Reddy husband of G.Radha as witnesses to fix the guilty of A.1. The Joint-Register, Register Office, Kurnool (LW7) furnished thumb impression register bearing No.Vol.No.398 containing 120 pages covering the period from 16-11-2006 to 27-11-2006 for the purpose of comparison of thumb impressions with the specimen thumb impressions of LW1 on the request of L.W.8. And further, L.W.7 furnished certified copies of said plot document No.2997/1987 vide C.No.2453/2008 dated 01- 08-2008. The said certified copy proves that the plot No.53 was in the name of LW1 prior to this case. To fix the genuineness of the transactions, specimen thumb impressions of L.W.1 collected in presence of the Hon’ble Magistrate, Kurnool marked as S1 and S2 forwarded them with thumb impression register furnished by L.W.7 marked as Q1 to the Director, Finger Prints Bureau, Hyderabad. The Finger prints expert, Hyderabad (LW6) has furnished his report vide C.No.59/U4/FPB-CID/2009 of finger prints Bureau, CID, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad opined that the thumb impression marked as Q1 is not identical with the specimen thumb impressions marked as S1 and S2 of L.W.1. The expert report is clearly shows that the sale deed vide document No.15449/2006 dt.18.11.2006 was not made by L.W.1 and it purely made by the forgery signatures of L.W.1 through A1.” Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that even though complaint lodged against many number of persons by making so many allegations, unnecessarily filed a case against the petitioners herein and further he submitted that the occurrence took place in the year 2006, whereas the complaint lodged after two years. As such, there is inordinate delay and further stated that the petitioners are native of Anantapur and others are Mahabubnagar. They have no acquaintance with the complainant. This Court heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the State and perused the record. The investigation agency after due investigation filed the present charge sheet. The points raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners are disputed facts, which are to be appraised by the trial Court at the time of trial only. Hence, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the trial at this stage. Hence, there are no merits in the present petition and the same is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is dismissed. Miscellaneous petitions filed in this Criminal Petition, if any, shall stand closed. __________________ JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO 26th August 2011 Rns