HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY CRIMINAL PETITION No.2515 of 2008 ORDER: This Criminal Petition is filed by the Petitioner/A.1 under Section 482 Cr.P.C., seeking to quash proceedings in Crime No.9 of 2008 of Yadagirigutta P.S., Nalgonda District, registered for offences punishable under Sections 420, 468, 471, 380 I.P.C. 2. Whereas the Petitioner is A.1 the second respondent is the de-facto complainant in the Calendar Case. For the sake of convenience, I refer the parties as arrayed in the Calendar Case. 3. The prosecution version is that the de-facto complainant got savings bank account in Nagarjuna Grameena Bank, Yadagirigutta vide account No.4574 which was opened in the year 1995 and he obtained cheque book containing 20 leaves from the Bank and he lost it as he mis-placed it and in the meanwhile the said Nagarjuna Grameena bank was renamed as Andhra Pradesh Grameena Vikas Bank and his account number was changed to 536 and because he lost the old cheque book he obtained another cheque book and on 22.12.2007 he deposited under his new account a sum of Rs.10 lakhs in the bank and on 27.12.2007 he went to the bank to withdraw some amount from his account and to his astonishment and shock he found that one Jidimadla Chokka Reddy, S/o. Linga Reddy, resident of Mallapur village i.e.,A.1 had withdrawn Rs.5,00,000/- from his old account bearing No.,4574 by presenting cheque which was part of the cheque book earlier lost having forged his (de-facto complainant) signature and further on 24.12.2007 A.1 deposited Rs.3,00,000/- in fixed deposit in the same bank in his name. 4. It is the claim of A.1 that he agreed to purchase Ac.9.12 guntas of land in Survey No.128/A of Mallapur village from the de-facto complainant at the rate of Rs.5,06,000/- per acre and paid Rs.35,000/- as advance to the de-facto complainant immediately and accordingly the de-facto complainant executed an agreement of sale on 05.01.2007 a copy of which is filed before the Court and subsequently A.1 made several payments totaling to Rs.11 lakhs and in-fact the de- facto complainant giving a go-by to the agreement of sale agreed to sell the property to a third party at the rate of Rs.10 lakhs per acre and therefore consequently the de-facto complainant returned some amount including the amount covered by the cheque in question and therefore no offence was committed by A.1 in the case. 5. On the other hand it is the contention of learned counsel for the de-facto complainant that the story put-forth by A.1 is not true and further before the trial Court the cheque was sent to a hand writing expert along with admitted signatures of A.1 in order to ascertain whether the cheque was forged by A.1 or not and consequently the expert sent his report to the effect that it happened to be a forged cheque, which is not disputed. 6. Therefore, it is to be seen as to whether there is prima facie material to prosecute A.1 for the alleged offence. 7. It is pertinent to note here that admittedly the disputed signature was sent to the hand writing expert along with the admitted signatures of A.1 and on necessary comparison of the disputed and undisputed signatures, the hand writing expert sent his report to the effect that the cheque was forged by A.1. Further it is to be ascertained as to how far the agreement of sale and the corresponding payments made are true and correct. Unless necessary trial is conducted, it is not possible to uphold the claim of A.1 at this stage. Further as there is prima facie material against A.1, the question of quashing the proceedings does not arise at all. 8. In the result, the Criminal Petition is dismissed. ___________________________ G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY, J 18-08-2011 Note: Issue CC by Monday(22.08.2011) Vjl