IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD THURSDAY THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B.CHANDRA KUMAR CRIMINAL PETITION No. 7 4 4 0 of 2007 Between: Kurmapu Rama Rao … Petitioner V/s. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Represented by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P. Hyderabad & Anr. … Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner : Sri V. Sudhakar Reddy Counsel for the Respondents : Public Prosecutor THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B. CHANDRA KUMAR CRIMINAL PETITION No. 7 4 4 0 OF 2007 O R D E R : This Criminal Petition has been filed to stay all further proceedings in CC.No. 2 of 2006, quash the docket order passed in Crl.MP.No. 999 of 2007 in CC.No. 2 of 2006 on the file of the Court of Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Special Mobile, Srikakulam. 2. The brief facts of the case are as follows: The petitioner is the younger brother of second respondent. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner and second respondent along with their mother filed OS.No. 314 of 1997 on the file of the Court of District Munsif, Srikakulam seeking injunction in respect of their joint family property. Subsequently, the second respondent had withdrawn the suit. Subsequently the second respondent filed CC.No.2 of 2006 making all false allegations that the petitioner herein forged his signature on vakalath and pleadings in the above referred civil suit and that he did not sign on the vakalath and pleadings. During the trial the second respondent was examined as PW.1. The petitioner herein filed Crl.MP.No. 999 of 2007 seeking to recall PW.1 for further cross-examination and to confront a letter said to have been written by PW-1 and the petition was dismissed by the impugned order. This petition has been filed to quash the said order. 3. Admittedly, copy of the above referred letter is not filed along with this petition. Admittedly the said letter was not filed in the lower court before PW-1 was cross-examined and therefore it was not confronted to PW.1 when he was examined in the court. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the second respondent (PW-1) is the author of the said letter and it would show that he himself proposed to file the civil suit and this circumstance would support the case of the petitioner that the second respondent (PW-1) himself accompanied him to the office of their advocate and he himself signed in the vakalath. Even if it is accepted for the sake of argument that the second respondent (PW-1) is the author of the said letter it would simply show that he proposed to file the civil suit. Merel because PW-1 proposed to file a suit it would simply show his earlier intention. Admittedly there are latches on the part of the petitioner. The above referred circumstances that he did not file the said letter till PW-1 was cross-examined would show his latches. Moreover, the alleged letter may not be of much useful to the petitioner except to show as one of the circumstances. In the circumstances, I do not see any illegality or irregularity in the order passed by the trial court. There are no grounds to quash the proceedings. Hence, the Criminal Petition is dismissed. _______________________________ JUSTICE B. CHANDRAKUMAR. 22-04-2010. I s L THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B. CHANDRA KUMAR CRIMINAL PETITION No. 7 4 4 0 OF 2007 Circulation Entry No. 13 Date: 22-04-2010 Computer No. 43 Court Master: I s L