THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY CRIMINAL PETITION No.2727 OF 2009 ORDER: This petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., seeking quashing of further proceedings in Cr.No.139 of 2009 on the file of the Station House Officer, Arundelpet police station, Guntur District. 2. Sri T.Pradyumna Kumar Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, states that he has given up the vakalat. None appeared for the petitioner. Heard learned Additional Public Prosecutor representing the 2nd respondent-State. Perused the record. 3. On a complaint given by the 1st respondent herein, a case in Cr.No.139 of 2009 was registered at Arundelpet police station, Guntur against the petitioner herein-accused for the offences under Sections 420, 468 and 506 IPC. According to the 1st respondent, petitioner-accused has been harassing her and her mother by filing case after case against them and that the petitioner obtained an ex parte decree against the complainant on the basis of a forged and fabricated agreement of sale in respect of the house bearing No.5- 43-2/A situate in 6/9 Brodiepet, Guntur in 0.S.No.753 of 2006 by furnishing false address of the complainant as if she was residing at Piduguralla. The complainant further alleges that the petitioner-accused has forged her signature in the alleged agreement of sale and also managed a false postal endorsement as if she refused to receive the notice. The complainant further alleges that the petitioner has cheated several other persons by creating forged documents. It is further alleged that on the previous date of filing the complaint, petitioner along with others came to her house and threatened her and her mother with dire consequences if they contest the suit. 4. In the Criminal Petition, petitioner has stated that the dispute is civil in nature and it is for the civil Court to decide whether or not the agreement of sale is true and if aggrieved the complainant’s remedy is to approach the civil Court for setting aside the ex parte decree passed in O.S.No.753 of 2006. 5. A perusal of the complaint would disclose that apart from the offences under Sections 420 and 468 IPC, the complainant has alleged offence under Section 506 IPC also. The truth or otherwise of the allegations contained in the complaint would have to be ascertained only after due investigation, but not at this stage. Having regard to the nature of the offences alleged and the specific allegations made against the petitioner in the complaint, it is considered not a fit case to quash the further proceedings in Cr.No.139 of 2009, invoking the inherent powers of the Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. 6. By order, dated 24.04.2009, this Court granted interim stay of arrest of the petitioner-accused for a period of six weeks with a further direction that the investigation can go on and the petitioner shall cooperate with the investigation. Petitioner-accused may not be arrested till the completion of the investigation. There are no valid or sufficient grounds to quash the further proceedings in Cr.No.139 of 2009. 7. In the result, Criminal Petition is dismissed, subject to the above direction. _______________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J 29th September, 2010 Tsy