HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRL.PETITION NO.3215 OF 2010 Date:12.04.2010 Between: Adigana Chinna Raju Babu and 5 others. …..Petitioners And: The State of A.P, rep. By Public Prosecutor and another …..Respondents. HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRL.PETITION NO.3215 OF 2010 ORDER: The petitioners (A-1 to A-6) are accused of offences punishable under Sections 468 and 420 I.P.C of Makavarapalem Police Station, Visakhapatnam District. On report given by the Tahsildar, Makavarapalem Mandal, the police registered Crime No.3 of 2010 for the said offences. The petitioners are seeking quashing of F.I.R in that crime. 2) It is alleged by the Tahsildar that A-1 to A-6 forged signatures of M.R.O and tampered records of I.B register in creating false pattadar pass books to claim Government land as their own. It is contended by the petitioners’ counsel that the Tahsildar was forced to give the above report to the police because one Adigarla Appala Naidu moved Upa- Lokayuktha, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad for taking action against revenue officers in respect of Government lands which are in his occupation and that the petitioners also filed W.P. No.27834 of 2009 in this Court and obtained interim direction against their dispossession from the lands as per order dated 22.12.2009 in W.P.M.P. No.36250 of 2009 and that therefore report given by the Tahsildar to the police is nothing but malicious and is covered by guideline No.7 of State of Haryana V. Bhajan Lal[1] for entertaining this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. It is consistent stand of the Tahsildar that the lands in question are all Government lands. The dispute is between Adigarla Appala Naidu and the petitioners about possession of the said lands. Private dispute between Appala Naidu and the petitioners has nothing to do with the present report given by the Tahsildar to the police. This report relates to forging signatures of M.R.O and tampering revenue records and creating false pattadar pass books. 3) It is contended that it is proper for the Tahsildar to give report only after examining the then M.R.O and after getting his signatures in the disputed documents compared with his admitted signatures and that giving report straight away is not warranted. The above exercise of recording statement of the then M.R.O and other revenue officers and making comparison of admitted signatures of the then M.R.O with disputed signatures and writings in the disputed documents, will be undertaken by the police during investigation of this crime. They are all not grounds for quashing F.I.R in this case. Allegations in report given by the Tahsildar to the police which formed basis for issuing of F.I.R in this case, prima facie disclose cognisable offences against the petitioners, when those allegations were taken on their face value. Thus, there are no merits in this petition. 4) Hence, the petition is dismissed. ________________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDA RAJULU,J. April 12, 2009 KSH [1] AIR 1992 SC 604