IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERAAD Wednesday, the 8th day of June, 2011 Present: Hon’ble Sri Justice N. Ravi Shankar CRL.P.Nos. 3803 and 3804 of 2011 Between: N. Satanarayana (Crl.P.No. 3803 of 2011) N.Srinivas Kumar (Crl.P.No.3804 of 2011) …Petitioner in both petitions and The State of AP …Respondent THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N. RAVI SHANKAR CRL.P.Nos. 3803 and 3804 of 2011 Common Order The petitioners in both these petitions are father and son and are accused in the very same case. Hence these two petitions are disposed off by this common order. 2. Both these petitions are filed under section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing the proceedings in C.C.No. 191 of 2010 on the file of court of learned XII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Nampally, Hyderabad. The petitioner in Crl.P.No. 3803 of 2011 is A-1 and the petitioner in the other criminal petition – Crl.P.No. 3804 of 2011 is A-3 and is stated to be the son of A-1 and though this petitioner’s age is given as 73 years, the counsel has now corrected it. 3. Charge sheet in the said C.C.No.191 of 2010 has been filed by the Inspector of Police, West Zone Team, CCS, Hyderabad for the offences punishable under sections 420, 471 and 468 read with S. 34 IPC. The version of the de facto complainant is that all the three accused cheated him by creating a forged sale deed and also certain other documents. The plea of the petitioners is that a suit in O.S.No. 187 of 2005 is already pending on the file of court of I Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy District and the controversy in the said suit and in this criminal case is the same and, therefore, the proceedings in criminal case should be quashed. It is difficult to accept this contention. It is now well settled that a cause of action may give rise to a criminal case and also a civil case and both the proceedings can go on simultaneously also. This apart, the charge sheet would show that the investigating officer has also obtained Forensic Science Laboratory report showing that the disputed signatures in some of the documents do not pertain to the de facto complainant. The learned counsel for the petitioners has also raised various contentions to show that the circumstances of this case and the civil suit would show that the petitioners are totally innocent. This contention may be correct or may not be correct, but purely falls within the realm of disputed question of fact and, therefore this court cannot decide the same in these proceedings. Accordingly both these petitions are dismissed. 4. It shall however be open for the petitioners to apply for dispensing with their attendance before the trial court on every date of hearing and the trial court may having regard to the pleas of the petitioners consider and dispose of that application. Further it shall also be open for the petitioners to make an application for their discharge if charges are not framed and the trial court may also dispose of that application. _____________________ N. RAVI SHANKAR, J. June 8, 2011. *BVS