HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY Criminal Petition Nos.3626 and 3836 of 2010 Date: 07-12-2011 Criminal Petition No.3626 of 2010: Between Ponduri Ramakrishnaiah and 5 others … Petitioners/Accused 2 to 7 and The Station House Officer, Kurichedu Police Station and The State of A.P., Rep. by Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad … Respondent Ogoti Arun Kiran … Respondent/De facto Complainant Criminal Petition No.3836 of 2010: Between Kaluvakolanu Venkata Nagaraju … Petitioner/Accused No.1 and The Station House Officer, Kurichedu Police Station and The State of A.P., Rep. by Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad … Respondent Ogoti Arun Kiran … Respondent/De facto Complainant HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY Criminal Petition Nos.3626 and 3836 of 2010 Order: These criminal petitions are ﬁled under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., seeking to quash the proceedings in Crime No.20 of 2010 on the ﬁle of Kurichedu Police Station, Prakasam district. 2. The aforesaid crime is registered for the alleged offences under Sections 463, 467, 420 and 471 of I.P.C. 3. Criminal Petition No.3626 of 2010 is ﬁled by accused 2 to 7 and Criminal Petition No.3836 of 2010 is ﬁled by accused No.1, as such they are heard together and disposed of by this common order. 4. In the aforesaid crime, the 2nd respondent is the de facto complainant. A private complaint is ﬁled under Section 190 Cr.P.C by the 2 nd respondent herein alleging that his grandmother, by name Thungathorthy Leelavathamma was the owner and possessor of house and landed properties covered by Door Nos.8/70, 8/73 and 8/74 in Survey No.170/2 situated at Kurichedu village. In the complaint it is alleged by the de facto complainant that when his grandmother was sick, he was taking care of her and later she executed an unregistered Will on 14-9-2009 in his favour. It is complained that accused No.1 insisted the de facto complainant to sell the properties of his grandmother at low price, for which he rejected. Afterwards, accused No.1 along with his associates i.e. accused 2 to 7 have forged a Will dated 29-9-2009 with regard to the same properties, which are covered by the Will in his favour. In the complaint it is stated that the said Leelavathamma was a signatory, but the Will is forged by the accused obtaining her thumb impression on the said Will. 5. In this criminal petition, it is argued by the learned counsel for the petitioners-accused 1 to 7 that accused No.1 has already ﬁled suit in O.S.No.22 of 2010, which is pending on the ﬁle of the learned Senior Civil Judge, Darsi, Prakasam district, for permanent injunction. In that view of the matter, there is no truth in the allegation made against the petitioners about the forgery of the Will. In any event, it is submitted that the accused 2 to 7 are unnecessarily dragged into the crime though the alleged Will is executed in favour of accused No.1. 6. In this case it is to be noticed that the 2nd respondent is the complainant in the private complaint ﬁled under Section 190 Cr.P.C and the same is referred for investigation under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. In the private complaint, it is speciﬁcally pleaded that all the accused have forged the Will, which is alleged to have been executed by late Leelavathamma in favour of accused No.1. Merely because a suit is ﬁled by accused No.1 and the same is pending consideration, is no ground for quashing of the proceedings in the crime. When there is a speciﬁc allegation of forgery of a Will, it is a matter for investigation by the Police. 7. As it is stated by the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor that this Court while staying arrest of the petitioners observed in the order dated 21-4-2010 allowing the investigation to go on. When the matter is taken up, it is submitted by the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor that the investigation is not completed and in view of the pendency of this petition, the investigation was not proceeded with. 8. In view of the allegation of forgery, it is a matter for investigation even with regard to the role of the accused 2 to 7 on the allegation of forgery is also a matter for investigation. In view of the allegations made only on the ground that a suit is filed against the de facto complainant by accused No.1, I do not ﬁnd any ground for quashing of the proceedings at this stage. 9. As it is pleaded that there is no forgery at all and the Will in favour of accused No.1 was executed by late Leelavathamma and further investigation is pending from 2010 onwards and further this Court has granted interim order on 21-4-2010 for stay of arrest of the petitioners and the said order continued all along, I deem it appropriate to dispose of these criminal petitions with a direction to the 1st respondent-Police not to take any steps for arrest of the petitioners-accused 1 to 7 till the investigation is completed. The petitioners shall cooperate with the investigation. It is also open to the respondents to take steps in accordance with law after final report is filed. 10. Subject to the above, both the criminal petitions are disposed of, at the stage of admission. _______________________ R.SUBHASH REDDY, J. 07th December, 2011. Ak HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY Criminal Petition Nos.3626 and 3836 of 2010 (Common Order) 07th December, 2011. (Ak)