THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL PETITION No.5291 of 2009 BETWEEEN: N.Dayanand Goud, S/o.Late N.Balaraj Goud …Petitioner /Accused No.2 AND 1. State of Andhra Pradesh through Station House Officer … Respondent/Complainant 2. N.Sayanna Goud, S/o.N.Balaraj Goud … Respondent/Defacto complainant CRIMINAL PETITION No.698 of 2010 BETWEEEN: K.Srinivasarao, S/o.Balaiah …Petitioner /Accused No.1 AND 1. N.Sayanna Goud, S/o.Late N.Balaraj Goud & another … Respondent/Complainant … Respondent/Defacto complainant HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL PETITION No.5291 of 2009 AND CRIMINAL PETITION No.698 of 2010 COMMON ORDER: The petitioners in both the petitions who are A1 and A2 are accused of offences punishable under Sections 420, 468, 408 IPC in Crime No.525 of 2005 of Begumpet Police Station, Hyderabad. A2 is brother of the defacto complainant/1st respondent. A1 previously filed CC.No.1339 of 2003 against the defacto complainant alleging an offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act on the file of XI Metropolitan Magistrate, Secunderabad. The defacto complainant alleges inter alia that he gave blank signed documents to financiers by names Anil Singh, Indrajith Singh and others in connection with loans taken by him for running business in M/s.Shivas International, Kachiguda and that A2, who is his brother, collected those blank signed documents from the said financiers and made over the same to A1, who after filling the blank documents filed CC.No.1339 of 2003 for dishonour of the cheque. It is contended for A2 that there are disputes between A2 and the defacto complainant due to which, he was falsely implicated in this case even though he has nothing to do with filing of CC.No.1339 of 2003 by A1. There is no dispute that CC.No.1339 of 2003 was ultimately dismissed in the year 2008 acquitting the defacto complainant herein. It is contended for A1 that because of disputes between brothers, a false case was registered against A1 because he instituted prosecution in CC.No.1339 of 2003 against the defacto complainant. It is further contended that Section 408 IPC has no application to facts of the case since A1 or A2 was not a clerk of the defacto complainant. If Section 408 has no application on the ground of the accused not being a clerk, etc., then a lesser offence under Section 406 may attract to facts of the case. Complicity of Anil Singh and Indrajith Singh for this offence is also to be investigated into by the Police. There is a specific allegation against A2 to the effect that A2 has a role in collection of blank signed documents from the said financiers and making over the same to A1 to facilitate him to file the case under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. All these facts alleged in the report are to be investigated into. It would be too early for this Court to consider whether the report was given by the defacto complainant as counter- blast for the interse disputes between brothers. I do not find any valid or legal reasons to stall the investigation in this case at its threshold. 2. In the result, both the petitions are dismissed. _____________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU, J Dated: 25.02.2011 ysk THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL PETITION No.5291 of 2009 AND CRIMINAL PETITION No.698 of 2010 DATED: 25.02.2011 ysk