THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.KANTHA RAO. CRL.PETITION No. 5115 of 2010. ORDER: This criminal petition is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking to quash the proceedings in C.C.No. 1836 of 2005 on the file of the V Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad. I have heard Smt.K.Lalitha, learned Counsel for the petitioners and Sri.Kowturi Vinay Kumar, learned Counsel for the 2nd respondent and also the learned Additional Public Prosecutor representing the State. The allegation levelled against the petitioners is that they have fabricated payment receipt dt. 14.5.2002 purported to have been executed by the 2nd respondent agreeing to sell the property for a total consideration of Rs. 18,70,000/- and issued receipt for Rs. 2,70,000/- on payment voucher of Sri Surya Granites and forged the signature of the 2nd respondent and that the said receipt was prepared by A.2 at the instance of A.1 and that basing on the fabricated receipt, the accused filed O.S.No. 314 of 2004 for Specific performance of agreement of sale on the file of II Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad and also O.S.No. 461 of 2006 for perpetual injunction on the file of IV Junior Civil Judge, Hyderabad. The contention of the 2nd respondent is that the petitioners are the tenants of the premises and the alleged receipt for Rs. 2,70,000/- was created by the petitioners for the purpose of filing civil suits and therefore they are liable to be punished for the offences under Sections 468, 471, 420, 506, 120-B r/w 34 IPC. On the other hand, it is contended by the learned Counsel for the petitioners that the 2nd respondent earlier got filed a complaint against the petitioners for the offence under Section 3(1) (x) of the SC and ST Atrocities Act through his driver and that the said case S.C.No. 312 of 2004 ended in acquittal after full-fledged trial. The learned Counsel for the petitioners would further submit that the entire litigation between the parties is civil in nature and only to harass the petitioners, the present case has been filed by the 2nd respondent and therefore she seeks to quash the proceedings. Now the point that arises for consideration is whether in the above facts and circumstances of the case, the prosecution of the petitioners for the alleged offences is maintainable or not. The learned Counsel for the petitioners filed a copy of deposition of the 2nd respondent who was examined as DW.3 in O.S.No. 314 of 2004 wherein he stated in his cross-examination as under: “I made a statement at page 4 of my written statement in this suit that Ex:A.1 does not contain my signature after verifying Xerox copy filed in the court. It is true that I did not mention in my written statement filed in the suit that I have received only a sum of Rs. 70,000/- and I had signed the voucher therefor in my written statement.” From the above statements of the 2nd respondent in his cross- examination in O.S.No. 314 of 2004, it is clear that the above suit was filed basing on Ex:A.1 and that the allegation of the 2nd respondent in his complaint that the petitioners have forged his signature on a receipt for Rs. 2,70,000/- is false. Further, the 2nd respondent also admitted that his driver gave a complaint under SC & ST Atrocities Act and the said case ended in acquittal and that against the acquittal judgement, they preferred an appeal before the High Court and the same is pending. The learned Counsel for the 2nd respondent invited my attention to the common Judgement in O.S.Nos. 314/2004, 461/2006, 64/2007 and 314/2004 wherein the learned II Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad held in para-(xii) as under: “My conclusions from the above discussion are that 1) DW.3 was not having authority to enter into sale transaction on behalf of the defendant on the date of Ex:A.1, 2) There was no evidence that defendant agreed to sell the property to the plaintiff; 3) there is no positive and acceptable proof that a sum of Rs. 2,70,000/- was paid by the plaintiff to the defendant towards advance of sale consideration and 4) Except signature on Ex:A.1 the other contents thereof are written by Pw.2 and it is not proved that DW.3 had signed in Ex:A.1 only after all the contents are written thereon and lastly 5) Ex:A.1 is a suspicious document.” Merely because the civil court expressed a doubt about the genuineness of the documents filed by the petitioners, it does not mean that the petitioners are liable for prosecution for forgery and other related offences. From the facts and circumstances borne out from the record and from the submissions made on either side, it is obvious that the dispute between the parties is purely civil in nature and in a case of this nature launching of parallel criminal proceedings in my considered view, is nothing but abuse of process of law. If the criminal case is allowed to be continued any longer, it will result in miscarriage of justice. Therefore, I am convinced that the criminal proceedings against the petitioners are liable to be quashed. Accordingly, the proceedings in C.C.No. 1836 of 2005 on the file of the V Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad are hereby quashed. The criminal petition is allowed. _____________________ R.KANTHA RAO,J 21.09.2010. KRB. THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.KANTHA RAO. CRL.PETITION No. 5115 of 2010. ORDER: DT. 21.09.2010.