IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRAPRADESH AT HYDERABAD HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL PETITION No.2258 of 2007 DATE:08.06.2010 Between: A.Siva Sankar Reddy and others. …… Petitioner/Accused. And: State of A.P. rep. By its Public Prosecutor and another. …..Respondents HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL PETITION No.2258 of 2007 ORDER: The petitioners 1 to 3/A-1 to A-3 are accused of offences punishable under Sections 468, 469 and 420 I.P.C in C.C. No.47 of 2006 on the file of Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Atmakur. Previously the 2nd respondent was president of Rural Development Society, Velugodu village of Kurnool District and was Correspondent of the College being run by the society. A-1 is an employee of the college as Superintendent. A-2 is presently Joint Secretary and A-3 is presently Secretary-cum-Correspondent of the college. No doubt, there are disputes between the 2nd respondent/defacto-complainant and the 3rd petitioner/A-3 and those disputes were in writ proceedings and writ appeal proceedings in this Court and ultimately that dispute is now pending with the Government, while status-quo order passed by this Court is prevailing in favour of A-3. 2) Be that as it may, now it is alleged that A-1 who is well acquainted with the facts and holding records of the college with criminal intention tampered records and created resolutions by forging signatures of witness Nos.2, 4 and 7 to 10 mentioned in the charge sheet and also signatures of fathers of witness Nos.3, 5 and 6 respectively who are no more and produced 25 years record before the Director of Collegiate Education showing that A-1 is president, A-2 is Joint Secretary and A-3 is Secretary-cum-Correspondent of the society and the College. 3) It is contended by the petitioners’ counsel that none of the above witnesses who were living and whose signatures are said to have been forged creating resolutions, figured as complainants in this case and that they were merely shown as witnesses for the prosecution. At this stage, it may be noted that because of the alleged forging of their signatures, they did not suffer any loss, but ultimately it was the defacto-complainant/2nd respondent, who suffered loss of his office of President of the society and the college. Therefore, since no one of those witnesses directly suffered any loss in spite of their signatures being allegedly forged, they did not come forward to give complaint/report. Because it is A-1 who suffered loss and injury to his post or position and consequentially reputation, he came forward and filed private complaint in the lower court, which was referred by the lower Court to the police for investigation and ultimately charge sheet was filed after investigation. In the circumstances, it is the 2nd respondent/defacto-complainant who is the aggrieved party in this case because of the alleged forgeries; and the persons whose signatures are alleged to have been forged are not the aggrieved parties. 4) It is contended by the petitioners’ counsel that even as per allegations in the complaint as well as in the charge sheet, it is A-1 who is said to have created records and forged signatures and not A-2 and A-3. A-2 and A-3 who are the beneficiaries who were said to have wrongfully gained by virtue of the alleged created record and resolutions with forged signatures. In that view of the matter, it cannot be said that A-2 and A-3 have no complicity in this case. Taking allegations in the complaint as well as in the charge sheet and documents filed along with the charge sheet on their face value, I do not find any valid or legal reasons to quash the proceedings in the pending case. 5) Hence, the petition is dismissed. _______________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU, J June 8, 2010 KSH