HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL PETITION NO.1287 OF 2007 Date: 01.02.2010 Between: T. Jagadish Kumar ……Petitioner And: State of A.P., rep. by PP and another ……Respondents. HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL PETITION NO.1287 OF 2007 ORDER: This petition is filed by the accused under Section 482 Cr.P.C., for quashing proceedings in C.C.No.669 of 2005 on the file of VII Metropolitan Magistrate, Hayathnagar, Ranga Reddy District relating to offence punishable under Sections 468 and 471 I.P.C Subject matter of the alleged forgery in this case is stamped receipt for Rs.20,000/- said to have been given by the 2nd respondent/defacto- complainant to the accused. Previously the 2nd respondent filed R.C.No.1 of 2001 on the file of Principal Rent Controller-cum-Principal Junior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District for eviction of the accused from the schedule premisis therein on several grounds including willful default in payment of rent. As defence to that rent control case, the accused/tenant filed the receipt in question dated 26.11.2000 which was marked as Ex.B-8 in that Rent Control case. The 2nd respondent/land lord contended before the Rent Controller that Ex.B-8 receipt is forged one and that it does not contain his signature. On petition filed by the land lord, the Rent Controller sent the disputed receipt to hand writing expert who after examination gave report opining that the receipt was not signed by the 2nd respondent. After full trial, the Rent Controller passed final order dated 04.08.2005 in R.C.No.1 of 2001 holding that the disputed receipt Ex.B-8 is genuine one. The Rent Controller did not place reliance on report of hand writing expert for reasons given in that order. It is stated by the 2nd respondent’s counsel that appeal filed by the 2nd respondent before the Rent Control Appellate Authority i.e., Principal Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District, Hyderabad is pending. Alleging that the petitioner has forged the disputed receipt for Rs.20,000/- and used the same as the evidence on his behalf in Court, the 2nd respondent gave report to Vanasthalipuram police who registered case in Crime No.590 of 2002 for offence punishable under Sections 468 and 471 I.P.C. After investigation, the police filed charge sheet before the lower Court against the petitioner. It is stated that in the criminal case, the complainant/2nd respondent was examined as P.W.1 and when the prosecution took steps for summoning the 2nd witness viz., hand writing expert, the petitioner filed this petition before this Court. Sheet-anchor of the petitioner’s case is order dated 04.08.2005 passed by the Rent Controller in R.C.No.1 of 2001. It is not as if the said order has become final. The said order is being questioned in the appellate court in which rent appeal is pending. Therefore, the said order will not come to rescue of the petitioner at this stage. Having regard to all the circumstances of the case, it is for the trial court to decide the question of fact whether the disputed receipt is a forged one or not, after recording entire evidence to be let in by both the parties. During that time, the lower court will also take into consideration of order of the Rent Controller in R.C.No.1 of 2001 and also further order if any to be passed by the Rent Control Appellate Authority. Thus, there are no legal or valid grounds for questioning proceedings in the criminal case in this petition. In the result, the criminal petition is dismissed. ___________________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU,J Date:01.02.2010. Gk. HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL PETITION NO.1287 OF 2007 Date: 01.02.2010 Gk.