THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CRIMINAL PETITION No.4539 of 2009 ORDER: To quash the proceedings in Crime No.105 of 2009 on the file of RGI Airport, P.S.Shamshabad, for the offences punishable under Sections 419, 420, 468 and 471 IPC the present criminal petition is filed. The allegations in the complaint would go to show that on 06.03.2009 at 13.00 hours, a complaint was received from Sri Mohd. Qhutubuddin, S/o. Rafeeuddin, age. 35 yrs, Occ.Bore mechanic/business, R/o. R.B.Nagar, Shamshabad, Ranga Reddy district, in which, he stated that Mohd.Baba @ Baba Sharfuddin, Afsar along with one Krosur Sathish and M.A. Salam, S/o.Raheem have created forged documents in their names and made sale agreement with the complainant. At the time of agreement, he paid Rs.1,00,000/- and again paid at third time Rs.5,20,000/- (Five Lakh twenty thousand rupees) towards part of sale consideration. Thereafter, said M.A.Salam has sold the same plot to another without his consent. Then, the complainant requested them to return his amount to him by cancelling the said agreement. Finally, he enquired with the Sub-Registrar Office, Shamshabad about the plot, came to know that the plot which was agreed to be sold under a sale agreement to him by M.A.Salaam, does not belong to them. That plot No.96 in Sy.Nos.108/part, 109/part, 110/part of Hermony Dharmagiri, Shamshabad village and Mandal, is belonged to some others. The above said M.A.Salam and his men have fabricated the plot documents and registered in the name of M.A.Salam in the Sub-Registrar Office, Shamshabad. Thereafter, they are all persuaded the complainant to enter into sale agreement and cheated. Thereafter, they again sold out the same plot to some others without his consent. The accused persons in the same manner, created and fabricated some documents in respect of 4 or 5 plots and sold out to third parties. He requested for necessary action against them. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that it is A.4, who allegedly agreed to sell the plot to the complainant under sale agreement, but the present petitioners are nothing to do with the said transaction and they are only mediators for the said transaction and therefore, continuation of proceedings against the petitioners is nothing but an abuse of process of Court. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the present petitioners along with A.3 and A.4 created forged documents and entered into an agreement of sale with the complainant, after receiving sale consideration. He also contended that modus operandi of the petitioners is to secure the innocent purchasers and offering to sell the plots by impersonating the original owners and created documents in their names, but that is not the subject matter of the present case. If the allegations in the complaint do not make out a prima facie case, then only, quashing of the complaint arises. It is an extraordinary remedy, which can only be exercised when there is an abuse of process of Court or to secure the ends of justice. It is not necessary to decide the correctness or otherwise of the allegations. If the allegations in the complaint make out a prima facie cognizable offence, then it is the statutory duty of the police to conduct investigation. That duty cannot be curtailed. The allegation is that the present petitioners along with A.3 and A.4 created forged documents in their names and entered into sale agreement with the complainant. Whether the petitioners created any forged documents or whether the documents created by the petitioners are fabricated or not or whether the petitioners having any title in respect of the property or not, are required to be investigated into by the police. Therefore, a prima facie case of forgery, as seen from the allegations, is made out. Hence, quashing of the complaint insofar as the petitioners does not arise. The Criminal Petition is accordingly, dismissed and the interim order, dated 02.07.2009 is vacated. _______________ K.C.BHANU, J 8th OCTOBER, 2009. kvni