HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL PETITION No. 4487 of 2009 O R D E R: The petitioners 1 to 7 /A1 to A7 are accused of offences punishable under Sections 468, 419, 471, 420 and 120-B IPC in Cr.No. 374 of 2009 of Rajendra Nagar Police Station, Cyberabad. Subject matter of dispute between the 2nd respondent/defacto complainant and the accused is plot Nos. 123 and 124 in S.Nos. 47, 48 and 52 admeasuring 400 sq.yds situated at Premavathipet, Rajendrangar Municipality. Previously the 2nd respondent gave another report to the police who registered the same as crime No. 231/2009 against the accused for offences punishable under sections 447, 427 and 506/34 IPC. The 2nd respondent also filed a suit for injunction before the Civil Court in OS No. 592 of 2008 and it is pending. 2. It is alleged that the accused obtained another sale deed in their favour by impersonation and criminal conspiracy by forging signature of one C.Hanumanth Reddy for the same property. The said Hanumanth Reddy is no other than President of the Society, who is original owner of the property. According to the complainant, the Society sold the plots to one Franklin, who in turn sold the same to him. Whereas the accused are stated to have obtained another sale deed said to have been executed by Hanumanth Reddy as President of the Society. 3. It is contended by the Petitioners’ counsel that it is not the 2nd respondent’s case that his signature is forged by the accused and that in case, there is any forgery of Hanumanth Reddy’s signature, then it is for Hanumanth Reddy to file case against the petitioners. This contention is not proper, because of the alleged forgery of signature of Hanumanth Reddy, it was not Hanumanth Reddy who suffered loss, but according to the 2nd respondent, it was he who suffered loss. Therefore, the 2nd respondent has got locus standi to file this case against the petitioners. 4. It is contended by the petitioner’s counsel that previously the 2nd respondent did not make allegations of forgery in their report in crime No. 231 of 2009. That will not preclude from making further allegations by the 2nd respondent, in case he came to know about the alleged forgery subsequent to giving of report in crime No. 231 of 2009. When there are serious allegations of forgery, impersonation and criminal conspiracy, I do not find any valid or legal reasons to stall investigation of this crime at its threshold. 5. In the result, the Criminal Petition is dismissed. _________________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU, J Dt. 09-09-2010 Mjl/*