THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.DURGA PRASAD CRIMINAL PETITION No.6713 of 2008 This is a petition filed under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code (for short Cr.P.C.) for quashing the proceedings in Crime No.169 of 2008 of Kothagudem I Town Police Station. The respondent No.2 herein has filed a private complaint against the present petitioners for the offences under Sections 420, 468 and 471 read with Section 34 of IPC alleging that the complainant’s paternal grand father by name late Sabastine Lourtdhe Nathan has purchased an extent of Ac.0.09 guntas situated in Survey No.161/1/2 at Chunchupally village and panchayat of Kothagudem Mandal under the registered sale deed document bearing No.560 of 1967 from its lawful owner for valuable consideration. Complainant’s deceased grandfather purchased the above said property for his own use and the above said property has been maintained by the complainant’s father. A.2’s brother by name Kolanu Balanarasimha, who is no more has fraudulently with a dishonest intention created a false and baseless registered document No.81/78 of Sub-Registrar Office, Kothagudem with regard to the above said property without obtaining the signature of the complainant deceased grandfather. On 03.09.2008 at about 5.00 PM, A.1 has brought the above said forged and false document, which was created at his house with common criminal intention of accused Nos.2 and 3 to dishonestly knock away the property of the complainant worth about Rs.10,00,000/- and he tried to use the said document as genuine documents. Accused Nos.1 to 3 admitted their above said criminal acts before the witnesses. Immediately the matter was reported to the local police I Town, Kothagudem by the complainant on 03.09.2008 and they directed him to approach the Court by filing a private complaint. Accordingly, he filed a private complaint and the said private complaint was referred to Station House Officer, I Town Police Station, Kothagudem and they registered the case in Crime No.169 of 2008. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for 2nd respondent. Learned counsel for the petitioners has pleaded that the averments made in the complaint does not disclose any offence against the present petitioners, who are A.1 to A.3 in the said complaint. He further pleaded that the complainant’s father and his brothers have earlier filed O.S.No.79 of 1996 for declaration of title against the present petitioners and the said suit was dismissed for default and no steps were taken by them for restoration of the said suit. Subsequently, the petitioner No.3 has filed O.S.No.412 of 2008 against the complainant’s father and his brothers when they tried to interfere with the possession of the said property and obtained interim injunction and the father of the complainant having failed in his attempt to grab the property, pressed into service the present complainant against the present petitioners. Learned counsel for second respondent, on the other hand, has pleaded that A.2 has created the said document in the year 1978 and subsequently sold the property in favour of A.3 and the averments made in the complaint clearly establishes the offence under Sections 420, 468 and 471 read with 34 IPC. A reading of the complaint discloses that A.2’s brother by name Kolanu Balanarasimha has fraudulently with a dishonest intention created a false and baseless registered document No.81/78 of Sub-Registrar Office, Kothagudem with regard to the above property without obtaining the signature of the complainant’s deceased grandfather S.L.Nathan and in the subsequent paragraphs of the complaint, it was mentioned that on 03.09.2008 at about 5.00 PM the A.1 has brought the above said forged and false document which was created at his house with common criminal intention of accused Nos.2 and 3 to dishonestly knock away the property of the complainant. Therefore, from the above, it is observed that A.1 brought the forged and false document with the criminal intention of A.2 and A.3 to knock away the property of the complainant, but the complaint does not disclose about the previous litigation that has taken place between the complaint’s father and his brothers with the accused with regard to the same property and what was the defence taken by the present petitioners in the said suit and the complaint also does not disclose about A.3 filing of the suit in O.S.No.412 of 2008. As rightly contended by the petitioners’ counsel that as the complainant’s father and his brothers have failed in their attempt in O.S.No.79 of 1996, pressed into service the present complainant as the said suit filed by them was dismissed on 10.01.2003. Moreover, the allegations made in the complaint does not disclose whether the alleged forged document was produced by the accused in any Court of law and the only allegation is that they are tried to use the same as genuine document. Thus, the allegations do not, prima-facie, constitute the offence under Sections 420, 468 and 471 read with Section 34 IPC. Therefore, the continuation of the proceedings against the present petitioners would amounts abuse of process of law. Therefore, the petitioners are entitled for quashing of the proceedings as prayed for. In the result, the criminal petition is allowed and the proceedings against the present petitioners in Crime No.169 of 2008 of Kothagudem I Town Police Station are hereby quashed. _____________________ P.DURGA PRSAD, J 7th April, 2011 KSP