HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA W.P. No. 9274 of 2009 Oral order: Petitioner No.1 claims to be the legally wedded wife of one late Sri. Y. Satyanarayana, who is the son of petitioner No.2. Late Sri. Y. Satyanarayana was an employee of Railways. He died on 21.09.2001. After his death, pension was granted in their favour. While so, it is the case of the petitioners that respondent No.4, based on a fabricated wedding card obtained Succession Certificate from the Administrator General of A.P. Thereafter, respondent No.4 filed a report before respondent No.3, namely Malkajgiri Police Station, against petitioner Nos. 1 and 2, stating that they forged some papers, showing as if petitioner No.1 is the wife of late Sri. Y. Satyanarayana, and by submitting those documents to the Railways, got sanctioned pension in their favour and drew the pension by opening an Account in Bank of India. Based on the said report, respondent No.3 registered a case in Crime No. 206 of 2002 against petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 for the offences punishable under Sections 419, 420 and 468 I.P.C. The said crime was numbered as C.C. No. 1773 of 2006 on the file of X Metropolitan Magistrate, Malkajgiri, who after full-fledged trial, by judgment dated 11.12.2006 convicted the petitioners. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioners state that they preferred Criminal Appeal No. 12 of 2007 on the file of the IV Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District. The petitioners state that upon coming to know that respondent No.4 obtained Succession Certificate from the Administrator General of A.P., they filed writ petition in W.P. No. 14383 of 2007, and this Court by order dated 10.07.2007, granted interim suspension of the Succession Certificate obtained by respondent No.4, and that the vacate stay petition filed by respondent No.4 was also dismissed. Since the writ petition in W.P. No. 14383 of 2007, filed by the petitioners questioning the grant of Succession Certificate in favour of respondent No.4 by the Administrator General of A.P., is pending, the petitioners filed the present writ petition praying the Court to direct respondent No.3, namely the Sub Inspector of Police, Malkajgiri, not to conduct proceedings in Criminal Appeal No. 12 of 2007 on the file of IV Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District, until W.P. No. 14383 of 2007 is disposed of finally. The learned counsel for the petitioners relied on the judgment of the apex Court in Mahant Ram Saran Dass v. Harish Mohan and Another[1] and of this Court in C. Ramakrishnaiah v. P. Murali Krishna[2]. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, the learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.1 and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home for respondent No.3. The nature of relief sought by the petitioners, namely to direct the respondent No.3, namely the Sub Inspector of Police, Malkajgiri Police Station, not to conduct the proceedings in the criminal appeal until the writ petition is disposed of, is misplaced, for the reason that when the appeal is pending on the file of IV Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy District, I fail to understand how they can seek direction to respondent No.3 not to conduct the proceedings in the criminal appeal until the writ petition is disposed of. Be that as it may, the petitioners admittedly filed writ petition in W.P. No. 14383 of 2007, questioning the Succession Certificate granted by the Administrator General of A.P. in favour of respondent No.4. The dispute that is involved in the writ petition has nothing to do with proceedings in the Criminal Appeal No. 12 of 2007 on the file of the IV Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District, which the petitioners filed questioning the judgement dated 11.12.2006, passed in C.C. No. 1773 of 2006 by the X Metropolitan Magistrate, Malkajgiri, convicting the petitioners for the offences, which were framed based on the complaint lodged by respondent No.4. The proceedings in the writ petition and criminal appeal being distinct and different, no direction can be given to suspend the proceedings in the Criminal Appeal No. 12 of 2007 until the writ petition is finally disposed of. The writ petition is misconceived and the same is accordingly dismissed. No costs. ________________ N.V. RAMANA, J. Dated: June, 2009 KSR [1] (2001) 10 SCC 758 [2] 2006 (2) ALT (Crl.) 404 (AP)