HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B. CHANDRA KUMAR Crl.P.No. 5427 of 2007 Date: 21-04-2010 Between: M.A. Fatima begum ……….. Petitioner and State of A.P. rep by Public Prosecutor and two others ………. Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B. CHANDRA KUMAR Crl.P.No. 5427 of 2007 ORDER: This Criminal Petition has been filed to quash the proceedings in Crime No.28 of 2006 on the file of the I-Town Police Station Kothagudem. 2. The specific case of the petitioner is that her marriage with the third respondent was solemnized as per the Muslim Personal Law on 06-06-1985 at Narsimla Pet in Warangal District. After the marriage, they lived together and the marriage was consummated. However, no children were born out of the said wedlock. It is also the case of the petitioner that her father was working as Attender in Kothagudem Court and that he had taken voluntary retirement and in his place, the third respondent was appointed. Subsequently, disputes arose between herself and the third respondent and she lodged a complaint against the third respondent and the same was registered as Crime No.179 of 2006 for the offence punishable under Section 498-A of IPC. However on the advise of the elders, the matter was compromised and the third respondent executed a written undertaking that he would look after the petitioner and take proper care. However, again the third respondent harassed the petitioner. Then the third respondent executed the disputed agreement on 27-10-1997, according to which, if he pronounces talaq to the petitioner, he would pay a sum of Rs.5 lakhs to her within 100 days from the date of pronouncement of the talaq and in default he would undertake to pay half of his salary every month to her. 3. While the matter stood thus, on 11-06-2001, the petitioner received a xerox copies of a letter and D.D. for Rs.7,000/- by post stating that the third respondent has pronounced talaq to her on 06-11- 2000. It is alleged that the originals of the said letter and D.D. are not enclosed. Then the petitioner filed M.C.No.74 of 2001 and got issued a legal notice on 30-06-2001 to the third respondent to pay Rs.5 lakhs within seven days. Subsequently, she filed a suit in O.S.No.15 of 2003 on the file of the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Kothaudem, for recovery of Rs.5 lakhs on the basis of the said agreement, dated 27- 10-1997 and the suit has been decreed. Then the petitioner filed E.P.No.148 of 2006 and the E.P. was ordered on 28-09-2006 directing attachment of the salary of the third respondent. On 23-02-2006 the third respondent herein filed a complaint alleging that the petitioner and others had fabricated the disputed agreement in pursuance of their criminal conspiracy and that they have committed the offences punishable under Sections 120-B, 420, 193, 468 and 471 of IPC and the matter has been referred to the police. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner referred to all earlier proceedings and submitted that the disputed document has been referred by the petitioner in O.S.No.15 of 2003 and also in the maintenance proceedings. 5. The learned counsel for the third respondent submitted that after registration of the case, the document was sent to the handwriting expert and he had opined that the said document is a forged one and that the third respondent had been taking the said plea in maintenance case and also in civil suit. 6. Admittedly, the petitioner herein did not take any steps to send the documents to the handwriting expert in M.C.No.74 of 2001 or in O.S.No.15 of 2003. The learned Additional Senior Civil Judge accepted the version of the petitioner and believed the said document and decreed the suit. The findings in the said judgment appears to have become final and when once the civil court accepts a document as a genuine document, the subsequent complaint filed by the petitioner that it is a forged document, in my view, cannot be accepted and the investigation, if any, done or to be done appears to be mere abuse of process. The Police officials cannot negate the findings given by a civil Court. In view of the above discussions, the proceedings against the petitioner are liable to be quashed. 7. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed. The proceedings against the petitioner in Crime No.28 of 2006 on the file of I-Town Police Station, Kothagudem, are hereby quashed. __________________ B. CHANDRA KUMAR, J Date: 21-04-2010 YCR