IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD THURSDAY, THE 12th DAY OF AUGUST, TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY CRIMINAL PETITION No.7024 of 2007 Between: Chillakuru Mahdavi and another … Petitioners And The State of A.P., rep. By its public Prosecutor and another … Respondents This Court made the following: HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY CRIMINAL PETITION No.7024 of 2007 ORDER: - This is a petition filed by the petitioners/accused Nos.1 and 2 under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.182 of 2004 pending on the file of Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Srikalahasthi, wherein the Magistrate took cognizance of the case on file for the offence punishable under Section 468 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, “IPC”). The complaint allegations shows that the complainant agreed to execute a registered sale deed in favour of Udayagiri Vasanthamma – L.W.1, with regard to the property measuring East to West 10 feet and North to South 55 feet with terraced house bearing D.No.16/485(A), Sriramanagar colony on 15.12.2003 and when she started to execute the registered sale deed with the help of scribe L.W.2, both the accused came forcibly and made stamped in the mob gathered before Srikalahasti Sub-Registrar Office and shouted with threats abusing the complainant in filthy language showing the false document of agreement of sale by taking an objection at the scribe not to proceed with the execution of the document as the property was already sold to the accused through an agreement of sale, dated 26.06.2002, in favour of accused No.1. Therefore, the complainant is not entitled to register the sale deed once again in favour of L.W.1 and a Xerox copy of the agreement of sale is given by accused No.2 to the brother of L.W.1. On reading the said agreement of sale, L.W.3 brother of the purchaser made enquiry, and came to know that the alleged agreement of sale was executed just one hour prior to the occurrence of the offence and the accused prepared a false document and forged the document to have wrongful gain. The sworn statement of the complainant was recorded by the Magistrate, wherein she stated that on 15.05.2003 when she went to Registrar Office, Srikalahasti for registering the sale deed in favour of L.W.1, accused Nos.1 and 2 together came to the Sub-Registrar’s office and obstructed the execution of sale deed stating that the complainant has already sold away the said plot to them on 26.06.2002 and executed an agreement of sale in their favour and at that time both the accused gave the Xerox copy of the sale agreement in which the contents of the agreement shows that she agreed to sell her plot to the accused. The accused themselves forged the signature of the complainant and created an agreement. She never received any consideration as mentioned in the agreement of sale, dated 26.06.2002, from accused No.1. The contents in the agreement are created and forged by the accused. Basing upon the sworn statement of the complainant, the Magistrate took cognizance of the offence and issued process. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the Xerox copy of the agreement of sale can be taken into consideration in view of Section 63 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (for short, “the Act”), for framing of the charge under Section 468 IPC. Earlier the complainant filed Crl.P.No.2493 of 2007 and withdrawn the same with a liberty to file appropriate application before the trial Court for discharge and also filed criminal petition No.1602 of 2007 in C.C.No.182 of 2004 to discharge the accused and the same was dismissed on 29.10.2007. Therefore, the proceedings are liable to be quashed. On the other hand, learned counsel for the 2nd respondent/ complainant contended that having invoked the jurisdiction earlier and when this Court has not inclined to quash the proceedings, the petitioners sought permission to move the trial Court for discharge and when the said application is dismissed, they have to challenge the same by way of revision, but not by filing another application for the very same relief and hence, the same is liable to be dismissed. The complaint allegations as referred to above and the sworn statement of the complainant clearly discloses that the petitioners prevented the complainant from executing the registered sale deed and furnished the Xerox copy of the agreement of sale, whereby the complainant agreed to sell the property and, therefore, the original of the said agreement of sale is deemed to be in possession of the person, who provided the Xerox copy of the same. Section 63 of the Act only deals with the secondary evidence and the production of secondary evidence and Section 65 of the Act deals with such secondary evidence relating to documents may be given and the proof of the document should be for primary evidence. Section 463 IPC deals with the forgery - whoever makes any false documents or false electronic record or part of a document or electronic record, with an intent to cause damage or injury to the public or to any person, or to support any claim or title, or to cause any person to part with property, or to enter into any express or implied contract, or with intent to commit fraud or that fraud may be committed, commits forgery. Section 468 IPC deals with forgery for the purpose of cheating – Whoever commits forgery, intending that the document or electronic record forged shall be used for the purpose of cheating, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine. Since the allegations discloses that the Xerox copy of the documents has been furnished by the petitioners/accused to prevent the execution of the registered sale deed, the proof of the charge should be that the document in question is a forgery and that the accused forged it and in forging it he intended that it should be used for the purpose of cheating. As already observed, once the Xerox copy of the document is furnished by the accused, it is for him to explain as to how he obtained the said Xerox copy. The decisions relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioners reported in Dhariwal Tobacco Products Ltd. V. State of Maharashtra[1] and Badrunnisa Begum v. Mohamooda Begum[2], which pertains to the admissibility of the document as secondary evidence in civil proceedings, do not apply to the facts of the present case. In view of the same, since the complaint allegations clearly disclose a cognizable offence, the complainant should be given an opportunity to establish her case and it is not a fit case to scuttle the proceedings in the C.C. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is dismissed. _______________ A.GOPAL REDDY, J 12th August 2010 lmv [1] (2009)1 SCC (Cri) 806 [2] (2001)3 ALD 11 (DB),