THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY Criminal Petition No.6783 of 2008 (Dated: 07-12-2011) Between: Batchu Madhusudhan S/o Late Sri B.R.Prasad ....Petitioner A n d State of A.P., through Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyd., and others. ...Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY Criminal Petition No.6783 of 2008 ORDER: This criminal petition has been ﬁled under Section 482 Cr.P.C., by the de facto complainant in C.C.No.1515 of 2008 on the ﬁle of III Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad to quash the order dated 20th October 2008 passed in Crl.R.P.No.173 of 2008 on the ﬁle of Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad. 2. The petitioner herein ﬁled a complaint before III Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad against Akkiraju Radhe Shyam, A.Ram Prasad and M.Satyanand alleging inter alia that they fabricated the Will dated 3-9-2004 allegedly executed by Smt. Sakku Bai. The complaint ﬁled by him came to be forwarded to the Station House Oﬃcer, S.R.Nagar P.S. Thereupon, the S.H.O., S.R.Nagar P.S., registered a case in Crime No.799 of 2005. During the course of investigation, the Station House Oﬃcer examined four witnesses and recorded their statements. After completing investigation, the S.I of Police, S.R.Nagar ﬁled charge sheet before III Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad. The learned Magistrate took the charge sheet on ﬁle as C.C.No.1515 of 2008. While so, the de facto complainant ﬁled criminal petition No.5843 of 2008 under Rule 195 of Criminal Rules of Practice and Circular Orders, 1990 to call for the original Will dated 24-9-2004 in O.P.No.564 of 2007 on the ﬁle of II Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad for being sent to Forensic Science Laboratory , Redhills, Hyderabad. The learned III Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, by order dated 12-9-2008 allowed the application. 3 Aggrieved by the order dated 12-9-2008, Shri Ram Chandra Mission, a society registered under the Societies Act filed revision before the Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad. The learned Metropolitan Sessions Judge while allowing the revision, directed the lower Court to return the Original Will dated 24-9-2004 to the revision petitioner by order dated 20th October 2008. Hence this criminal petition by the de facto complainant with a prayer stated supra. 4. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, learned counsel appearing for the 1st respondent-State and learned counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is aggrieved by the direction given by the revisional Court to return the Original Will dated 24-9- 2004 to the 2nd respondent. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent reports that the 2nd respondent has no objection for returning the Will to the Court from which it has been called for. 7. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is disposed of modifying the order passed in Criminal Revision Petition No.173 of 2008 to the extent of returning the Will dated 24-9-2004 to the Court from which the same has been called for. _____________________ B.SESHASAYANA REDDY, J Dt.07-12-2011 RAR