THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY Criminal Petition No.2864 of 2008 (Dated : 23-07-2010) Between: M/s.Chkkilam Estates Limited Rep. By Sri Raghuram C, Somajiguda, Hyderabad …Petitioner A n d The State of A.P. Through Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyd. and another …Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY Criminal Petition No.2864 of 2008 ORDER: This Criminal Petition has been taken out by the petitioners, who are two in number, with a prayer to quash the proceedings in Crime No.86 of 2008 on the file of C.C.S., Hyderabad registered for the offences under Sections 419, 420, 465, 468 and 471 read with 120-B IPC. 2. The 2nd respondent-Dharmpal presented a complaint before the XII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad alleging inter alia that the petitioners herein forged his signatures in a development agreement and obtained loan of Rs.2,50,00,000/- from the State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur, Shivaji Nagar Branch, Secunderabad. Thereupon, the said bank filed O.A.No.93 of 2007 on the file of Debt Recovery Tribunal, Hyderabad for recovery of the same against the accused as well as the complainant. The complainant approached the officials for getting the certified copy of the development agreement from the bank authorities on 2.2.2008. Some of the prospective purchasers of the flats in the said complex filed a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act alleging deficiency of service of the complainant and the accused. Thus, the accused created, forged and fabricated the development agreement. (b) The said complaint came to be forwarded by the XII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad to the Station House Officer, Punjagutta P.S. Thereupon, the S.H.O., Punjagutta P.S registered a case in Crime No. 209 of 2008 under Sections 419, 420, 465, 468, 471 read with 120-B I.P.C., and issued F.I.R. Hence, this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C with a prayer stated supra. 3. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the 1st respondent-State. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the dispute between the parties is civil in nature, and therefore, initiation of criminal proceedings amounts to abuse of process of law. 5. I have gone through the complaint presented by the 2nd respondent. It is specifically averred in the complaint that the petitioners secured his signatures on the development agreement and raised a loan of Rs.2,50,00,000/-.The case is under investigation. In the given facts and circumstances, I am of the view that interfering with the investigation in Crime No.209 of 2008 in exercise of powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is not warranted. 6. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is dismissed. _____________________ B.SESHASAYANA REDDY, J Dt. 23-07-2010 RAR THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY Criminal Petition No.2864 of 2008 (Dated : 23-07-2010)