HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY CRIMINAL PETITION No.5674 OF 2008 DATE: 01-04-2011 BETWEEN: Navvada Srishailam @ Navvada Vijayendra and another. - - - Petitioners/ A-1 and A-2. AND The State of A.P., Rep. by Public prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad and another. - - - Respondents/ Complainants. This Court made the following : HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY CRIMINAL PETITION No.5674 OF 2008 ORDER: This Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioners under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., seeking to quash entire proceedings in C.C. No.521 of 2008 registered for offences punishable under Sections 419, 420, 468 and 109 of I.P.C. on the file of learned Additional Judicial First Class Maistrate, Sangareddy, Medak District. 2. The petitioners are the accused and the first respondent is the complainant and the second respondent is the de-facto complainant in the calendar case. For the sake of convenience the parties hereinafter will be referred as they arrayed in the Calendar Case. 3. Heard Sri P. Nagendra Reddy, learned counsel appearing for the accused and Sri K. Surender, learned counsel for the Respondent No.2 and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent-State. 4. The case of the prosecution in brief is as follows : The de-facto complainant and others are the owners of Ac.9-19 guntas of land in survey No.1037/A, 10381/A, 1039/A, 1040/1A, 1041/A, 1107/A at Ameenpur village patancheru Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. Recently they have obtained encumbrance certificate for the lands and found that an agreement of sale-cum-General Power of Attorney was executed in favour of C. Vishnu Vardhan Reddy without their knowledge in respect of the same properties. Therefore, the de-facto complainant gave report to the concerned police on the basis of which, the police registered a case in Crime No.57 of 2008 for the offences punishable under Sections 419, 420, 468 and 109 I.P.C. Accordingly the Sub-Inspector of police there conducted necessary investigation and came to the conclusion that the first accused took the second accused into confidence with a promise to give money and motivated and inspired the second accused for preparing a false agreement of sale-cum-General Power of Attorney and entered the name of Vishnu Vardhan Reddy, S/o. Subba Reddy , and also got created necessary documents and took the second accused to Sub- registrar office, Patancheruvu and obtained the signatures of the second accused on the agreement of sale-cum-G.P.A. as Vishnu Vardhan Reddy and hence both of the accused committed offences punishable under Sections 419, 420, 468 and 109 I.P.C. 5. It is the contention of learned counsel for the accused that the name of the second accused is only C. Vishnu Vardhan Reddy and not B. Praveen Kumar and the prosecution failed to give his correct name and therefore there is no question of any impersonation of the said B. Praveen Kumar and further the prosecution failed to take necessary measures to collect the signatures of the so called owners of the property for the purpose of necessary comparison and report whereas correspondingly there is no basis to say that actually the agreement of ale was forged and fabricated and there are photos and thumb impressions on the relevant pages of the sale deeds which provide that they only executed document and therefore the charge sheet is misconceived and accordingly it is to be quashed. 6. Therefore, the point for consideration is whether sufficient material is not there in order to prosecute the accused for the alleged offences and the calendar case is to be quashed? 7. As per a copy of sale deed, filed before the Court Sunita, Anita, N. Srinivas, Bablu, Lalitha and others owners of the property actually executed the document in favour of the second accused with regards to the property. Therefore, there should be clear material to the effect that in fact the first accused in collusion with the second accused in the circumstances stated got created the sale deed. The investigation officer should have taken necessary measures in that context collecting necessary signatures but there is no basis to assert that it was done. 8. It is to be very much emphasized that according to the accused the name of the second of them is only Sri C. Vishnu Vardhan Reddy and he did not impersonate anybody and the sale is a genuine one. In the circumstances there is no sufficient material to proceed with the prosecution of the Criminal Case. 9. By virtue of Section 482 of Cr.P.C any abuse of process of law is to be prevented. At the same time, it is also to be seen that justice is done to both the accused and also the accuser and therefore while quashing the proceedings it is necessary to give direction to the prosecution to reinvestigate the matter and ascertain whether any forgery of the signatures of the so called vendors was done sending their admitted and disputed signatures to hand writing and finger prints expert and file the charge sheet subject to that including the question of collecting necessary signatures and ascertaining whether there was any forgery in the sale deed. In the result, the Criminal Petition is allowed quashing the cognizance taken by the trial Court in C.C. No.521 of 2008 on the file of learned Additional Judicial First Class magistrate, Sangaredy, Medak District, only with a direction to the learned Magistrate to order for the reinvestigation of the case to take necessary measures in the light of the observations made. __________________________ G. KRISHNA MOHANR EDDY, J Dated: 01-04-2011 Dsh.