HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL PETITION NO.315 OF 2009 DATE:29.07.2010 Between: Anne Bose and another …… Petitioners. And: State, rep. by the Public Prosecutor and another …..Respondents. HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL PETITION NO.315 OF 2009 ORDER: 1. The petitioners 1 and 2/A-1 and A-2 are accused of offences punishable under Sections 419, 420, 468, 471 IPC and Section 3(1)(iv) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act (in short, the Act) in Crime No.441 of 2008 of Pothinamallayyapalem Police Station, Visakhapatnam. Private complaint filed by the 2nd respondent was referred to the police by the Magistrate for investigation under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. Subject-matter of dispute between the parties is 242 sq. yards of site which was assigned to the 2nd respondent by the Government. The 2nd respondent filed OS No.1552 of 2005 against the petitioners for recovery of possession of the said property from the defendants/A-1 and A-2. In that suit, the petitioners filed written statement contending that the defendants paid Rs.50,000/- to the plaintiff and obtained agreement for sale from him. Therefore, it is contended by the petitioners’ counsel that the dispute is one which is purely of civil nature. This Court on criminal side cannot go into and decide validity of the alleged sale agreement under the A.P. Act, 1977. It is alleged that A-1 created a forged document by way of sale agreement on the instigation of A-2 as if the defacto-complainant entered into the said sale agreement with the A-1. According to the defacto-complainant, the said sale agreement is forged and that it does not contain his signature. Though the dispute between the parties is relating to immovable property, the allegation that A-1 and A-2 forged the sale agreement under which they are claiming rights in the civil suit, attracts applicability of provisions of IPC. Since it is alleged that the defacto-complainant is ‘Mala’ by caste, Section 3(1)(iv) of the Act is also applicable to this case. It cannot be said that due to civil dispute, the alleged forgery of documents cannot be investigated into. Therefore, I do not find any valid or legal reasons to stall the investigation in this crime. 2. Hence, the criminal petition is dismissed. __________________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU,J. Date:29.07.2010. Gk. HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL PETITION NO.315 OF 2009 Date:29.07.2010 Gk.