THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY Crl.P.No.7270 of 2008 ORAL ORDER: This petition is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking to quash proceedings in C.C.No.752 of 2005 on the file of the III Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada, registered for offence punishable under Section 420 IPC. The petitioner is A2, the first respondent is the complainant and the second respondent is A1 in the case. For the sake of convenience, I refer them as arrayed in the calendar case. The brief facts of the case are as follows: A2 is the son-in-law of A1 and first respondent. The complainant and A1 are the members of joint family. In order to defeat her rights over the property, A1 and A2 colluded together and got filed suit i.e. O.S.No.1017 of 2003 on the file of I Additional Junior Civil Judge, Vijayawada for permanent injunction creating false record in respect of the joint family property and subsequently A1 had withdrawn the suit. In the suit, a third party affidavit stated to be given by the complainant was filed before the Court. On enquiries made by the complainant it came to light that A1 forged her thumb impression and filed the affidavit before the Court below for the purpose of withdrawing the suit. It is contended on behalf of A1 that absolutely the complainant got no rights over the property and in fact A1 is the owner of the property and there was no collusion between A1 and A2 in filing the said suit and the ingredients of Section 420 IPC are not attracted here. The point for consideration is whether there are sufficient grounds in order to quash the proceedings. In order to take cognizance of the complaint, there should be material prima facie to the effect that the complainant happened to be the absolute owner of the property and only for the purpose of defeating her rights over the property, A1 and A2 got colluded together and filed the said suit creating false document. There is no basis to say that any other record was produced before the Court in order to assert that the complainant happened to be the owner of the property before taking cognizance of the matter, whereas unless necessary record was filed before the Court in that context, the question of taking cognizance of the case on the ground that A1 and A2 in collusion with each other got filed the suit and had also withdrawn the suit for the purpose of defeating the rights of the complainant, does not arise. Therefore, the cognizance taken by the learned Magistrate is hereby quashed, but however, the complainant is at liberty to take necessary measures for establishing prima facie that she got absolute ownership over the property and A1 and A2 did so to defeat her rights and to take necessary action against A1 and A2 in the matter. The Court below has to proceed as per law and applying mind. It should not work as post office only. Any mistake committed by the Court would have far reaching consequences and one party or the other have to suffer to a great deal. The Criminal Petition is accordingly allowed subject to the observations made above. ________________________ G.KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY, J Dated: 30-11-2011 DA THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY Crl.P.No.7270 of 2008 30.11.2011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY Crl.P.No.7270 of 2008 Date: 30th November, 2011 Between: Golla Sobhanadri .. Petitioner/ A2 And Pilleli Pushpa Leela and others. .. Respondents