IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, HYDERABAD TUESDAY, THE FOURTEENTH DAY OF TWO THOUSAND AND TEN HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY CRL.P.No.12396 OF 2010 Between: A.Nageswar Reddy ….Petitioner A n d The State of A.P., Rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad and another …Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY CRL.P.No.12396 OF 2010 ORDER: This petition is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., for quashing further proceedings against the petitioner/A-1 in Cr.No.1101 of 2010, of L.B.Nagar Police Station, Cyberabad. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent- State. Perused the record. 3. Based on the complaint given by the second respondent, who was working as Principal Junior Civil Judge-cum-Judicial Magistrate of the First Class for trial of cases under the A.P. Land Grabbing Act, 1982, the police registered a case in Cr.No.1101 of 2010 against the petitioner/A-1 and others for the offences under Sections 420, 468 and 472 IPC. In his complaint, the second respondent has stated that some affidavits were produced before him as if they were attested by him and the signatures contained in those affidavits were found to be forged and the official seals were not tallying with the original seals of the Court and, therefore, he suspected that somebody issued fake affidavits in the name of the second respondent. 4. As seen from the remand case diary pertaining to A- 1, the investigation made so far revealed thatA-1, who is notary Advocate, and A-2, another Advocate practising in City Civil Court, Secunderabad, colluded with each other and created fake official seals and forged the signatures of the Principal Civil Judge, the second respondent, and created fake affidavits. A-2 was arrested and remanded to judicial custody, while the petitioner/A-1 was stated to be absconding. The petitioner/A-1 has now filed the present application seeking quashing of further proceedings in F.I.R.No.1101 of 2010. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner/A-1 would submit that the present complaint was given as a counter- blast to a representation dated 08-04-2009 submitted by the petitioner/A-1 to the Chief Justice of the High Court. A perusal of the said complaint would disclose that the petitioner/A-1 gave the said complaint to the effect that certain brokers were indulging in illegal acts on the premises of the Civil Court and were cheating the innocent litigants by creating false affidavits. In the said complaint, there is no reference to the second respondent and no allegation is made against the second respondent. The present complaint given by the second respondent on coming to know that the signatures were forged on certain affidavits and the officials seals of the Court were also not tallying with the seals found on the said affidavits, cannot be construed to be a counter-blast to the representation given by the petitioner/A-1 on 08-04- 2009. When once it has come to the notice of the second respondent that certain fake and fabricated affidavits purporting to contain the attesting signatures of the second respondent with fake seals are being issued, the second respondent is certainly bound to give a complaint to the police to see that the scam is unearthed and the persons operating the same are exposed and brought to book. 6. In the complaint, the second respondent has not named any particular individual as a person behind the fraud. He only brought it to the notice of the police about the circulation of the fake and fabricated affidavits and requested them to investigate. 7. Having regard to the gravity of the nature of the offences alleged and in view of the serious allegations made in the complaint pertaining to the image of the institution of judiciary itself, the complaint requires to be investigated thoroughly so as to expose the persons behind the fraud and bring them to justice. In fact, the investigation is half way through and few more witnesses are yet to be examined. It is, therefore, considered not a fit case at all to invoke the inherent powers of the Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C and quash further proceedings in Cr.No.1101 of 2010. 8. It is well settled that the inherent powers of the Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C., have to be exercised with care, caution and circumspection and cannot be invoked to thwart further investigation into a complaint, especially when specific allegations have been made. 9. The investigation into the complaint shall, therefore, go on. There are absolutely no valid or justifiable grounds to scuttle the same by invoking the inherent powers of the Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C., especially in a complaint of this nature. 10. In the result, the criminal petition is dismissed. ____________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J 14th December, 2010 Lrkm.