THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL PETITION No. 7576 of 2009 Date: 25th March, 2011 Between: Sri Godavari Chandra Sekhar … Petitioner A n d The State of A.P., rep. by Public Prosecutor and 3 others … Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL PETITION No. 7576 of 2009 ORDER: The petitioner/A1 is accused of offences punishable under Sections 323, 403, 419, 420, 468, 471, 506/34 I.P.C. along with three others. The petitioner is nephew of the 2nd respondent/de facto complainant. Subject matter of the alleged forgery is advance receipt said to have been passed by the 2nd respondent in favour of the petitioner after receiving Rs.7,00,000/- out of Rs.7,50,000/- towards value of the property said to have been agreed to be sold by the 2nd respondent to A1. A2 and A3 are attesters and A4 the scribe of the advance receipt. It is alleged that A1 who was looking after the properties of the 2nd respondent and who took custody of documents from her by making false representation colluded with A2 to A4 and brought the advance receipt into existence by forging her signatures and by fabricating the documents. It is contended by the petitioner’s counsel that the petitioner/A1 filed O.S.No.409 of 2009 on the file of V Senior Civil Judge, Guntur, for specific performance of the agreement dated 10-12-2006 covered by the advance receipt and that after the Civil Court passed interim injunction order directing the 2nd respondent not to alienate the property, the 2nd respondent came up with false complaint/report in order to weaken the civil suit filed by the petitioner. It is further alleged in the complaint that when the 2nd respondent questioned the accused, all the accused became furious and abused her in filthy language and beat her indiscriminately and threatened her with dire consequences. Pendency of civil suit for specific performance does not operate as legal bar for pursuing remedies by the 2nd respondent under Criminal Law. The allegations in the complaint/report disclose ingredients for the offences for which the case was registered against the petitioner. Truth or otherwise of the said allegations cannot be subject matter of this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C, as it has to be decided by the investigating officer after collection of evidence during investigation. 2. In the result, the Criminal Petition is dismissed. However, it is open to the petitioner to approach appropriate court seeking anticipatory bail. _____________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU, J Date: 25th March, 2011 KSM