THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.16207 of 2003 ORDER: The petitioner challenges registration of FIR No.129 of 2001 against her by the Station House Officer, Governorpet P.S., Vijayawada, on a complaint submitted by the second respondent. The second respondent alleged that the petitioner and 12 others, who were arrayed as accused in her complaint, had forged her signature and brought into existence a General Power of Attorney, dated 21.08.1990, in respect of the properties in various survey numbers of Kondapur Village, Serilingampalli Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, held by Sri one Movva Veera Raghavaiah. The petitioner submits that the second respondent did not mention the date of her knowledge in the complaint, and unless the same is mentioned, the complaint ought not to have been entertained, much less there was any justification for the first respondent to register the FIR. It is also stated that even if the facts mentioned in FIR are taken on their face value, no case is made out and the FIR is liable to be quashed. Respondents 1 and 2 filed separate counter-affidavits. They raised an objection as to the maintainability of the writ petition. It is stated that subsequent to the filing of the writ petition, the final report was also submitted to the trial Court and the truth or otherwise of the allegations contained in the FIR is to be examined only during the trial. Heard Sri Minnikanti Laxmi Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Government Pleader for Home for the first respondent and Sri B.Sudhakar Reddy, learned counsel for the second respondent. It is only in rare and exceptional cases that this Court would entertain writ petitions against FIRs and quash the same in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Basically, it is for the concerned Court to pronounce upon the truth or otherwise of the allegations made against an accused, after conducting the trial. One of the circumstances under which this Court can interfere with FIRs is, where the complaint, even if taken on its face value, does not disclose any ground to prosecute the accused. There are also instances where the facts mentioned do not bring about a crime as defined under the relevant provisions of law. In the instant case, the second respondent alleged that the petitioner and other accused have brought into existence a General Power Attorney by forging her signature. It is true that the second respondent did not mention the date of her knowledge about the General Power Attorney, which is said to have been executed on 21.08.1990. That, however, is a matter, which needs to be examined during the course of investigation. In case the investigation does not disclose valid grounds, there shall not be any occasion to file a charge sheet in the form of a final report. In the instant case, this Court refused to stay the further proceedings in the matter. On the other hand, specific permission was accorded for filing of charge sheet. After the charge sheet was filed, the petitioner assailed the same by filing Crl.P.No.2919 of 2006. Three other accused in the same case have also filed similar criminal petitions under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.725 of 2005. This Court passed a common order, dated 06.02.2007 and dismissed the petitions. Once this Court had dismissed the criminal petitions filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., to quash the proceedings, after the charge sheet is filed, virtually nothing remains to be decided in this writ petition against the registration of FIR. The case has crossed the stage of FIR and no procedural irregularity was found with the filing of charge sheet. Hence, the Writ Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY, J Dt.29.12.2008 GJ