THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CRIMINAL PETITION No.5698 of 2009 ORDER: To quash the proceedings in Crime No.884 of 2009 on the file of Saroornagar Police Station, Cyberabad, Hyderabad, the present criminal petition is filed. The allegations in the complaint would go to show that prior to 23.07.2009, the accused persons by name A.1 - C.Srinivas Goud, S/o late Pandarinath Goud, Age: 36 years, R/o 16-2-755/5, Dilsukhnagar; A-2 - Jagan Mohan Rao, S/o Yadagiri Rao, Age: 39 yrs, R/o Plot No.8, Road No.1, Maruthinagar, Meerpet; A-3 - D.Raju Goud; A-4 - D.Prem Goud; A-5 - D.Bupesh Goud; A-6 -D.Sankar Goud, A-3 to A-4 R/o Plot 0-119, MLR Colony, Meerpet, cheated the complainant and forged the signature of the complainant on the lease deed in respect of complainant’s building bearing H.No.18-79 situated at Chaithanyapuri X Road. It is also alleged that by creating lease deed in respect of the above building as the partners of Garuda Hotels & Establishments, the accused had taken permission from the Prohibition and Excise Superintendent for running business establishment. The complainant requests to take necessary action against the accused persons. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the lease was executed by the second respondent in the year 2007 and in pursuance of the said lease deed, the petitioners invested Rs.40,00,000/- to run the business i.e. bar and restaurant and with a view to evict them from the premises in question, the present complaint is filed and hence continuation of the proceedings against the petitioners is nothing but an abuse of process of Court. Learned counsel for the second respondent contended that no such lease deed was executed by the second respondent; that the lease deed was created and forged by the petitioners herein behind the back of petitioners and that the second respondent also filed a suit for eviction and hence, he prays to dismiss the petition. There cannot be any dispute that the inherent powers can be exercised, when there is an abuse of process of Court or to secure the ends of justice. When the allegations make out a prima facie case, the question of quashing the complaint does not arise. At this stage, this Court cannot go into the question as to whether the allegations in the complaint are true or false, and that is the matter to be decided by the competent Court. When the allegations make out a cognizable offence, it is the statutory duty of the police to conduct investigation. That statutory duty cannot be curtailed. A clear allegation has been made that all these petitioners have forged the signatures of the complainant in the lease deed in respect of house building bearing No.18-17 situated at Chaitanyapuri Cross Road by saying that they were the partners of M/s.Garuda Hotels and Establishments and have taken permission from the Prohibition and Excise Superintendent for running business. Whether a lease deed was executed by the second respondent or not, whether it was created by the petitioners or not, are the matters to be investigated into and to be determined by the competent Court after adducing evidence before it. The correctness or otherwise of the allegations cannot be decided in exercise of jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Since the allegations prima facie made out the offence of cheating and forgery of document against the petitioners, quashing of the complaint insofar as the petitioners does not arise. The criminal petition is accordingly, dismissed. _______________ K.C.BHANU, J 8th OCTOBER, 2009. kvni