THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE T.SUNIL CHOWDARY CRIMINAL PETITION Nos.5119 & 5245 OF 2011 COMMON ORDER:
1 These two petitions (Crl.P.No.5119 of 2011 by A.1 & A.3 and Crl.P.No.5245 of 2011 by A.2 & A.4) are filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C to quash the proceedings against the petitioners in Cr.No.61 of 2011 on the file of Kaikaluru Police Station, Krishna district, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 465, 467 and 471 r/w 120 IPC.
2 The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the allegations made in the complaint do not constitute the offences alleged. He further submitted that the lis involved between the parties is purely civil in nature.
3 On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the material available on record is prima facie sufficient to investigate into the matter.
4 This Court, while exercising inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C, can quash the F.I.R. in the following circumstances:
(1) if the allegations made in the complaint do not constitute any offence much less the offence alleges to have been committed by the petitioner;
(2) even if the allegations made in the complaint ex facie taken to be true and correct, there is no possibility of conviction of the petitioner;
(3) if the registration of the case against the petitioner is prohibited by any law for the time being in force; or
(4) if the registration of crime and continuation of investigation would amount to misuse of process of law; and
(5) to meet the ends of justice.
5 The second respondent is the de-facto complainant and the petitioners are accused 1 to 4 in Cr.No.61 of 2011. During the course of arguments, the learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the first petitioner in Crl.P.No.5119 of 2011 i.e. A.1 is no more.
6 As per the allegations made in the complaint, the petitioners have forged the documents with an ulterior motive to defeat the legal rights of the second respondent. Whether the lis involved between the parties is purely civil in nature or not has to be decided during the course of investigation only. While deciding the petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C, the Court has to take into consideration the allegations made in the complaint only. The Court is not justified in embarking upon the enquiry to ascertain the truthfulness or otherwise of the allegations made in the complaint at the initial stage of investigation. The material placed before the Court is prima facie sufficient to investigate into the matter against the petitioners herein.
7 Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case on hand and [1] also the principle laid down in R.P.Kapoor v. State of Punjab and State [2] of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal , I am of the view that this is not a fit case to quash the proceedings at this stage.
8 The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the Station House Officer, Kaikaluru Police Station may be directed not to arrest the petitioners pending investigation in the crime.
9 A perusal of the record reveals that this Court on 28.06.2011 in Crl.P.No.5119 of 2011 and on 30.06.2011 in Crl.P.No.5245 of 2011 granted interim stay in Cr.No.61 of 2011 on the file of Kaikaluru Police Station, Krishna district and the same has been in force till today. In view of the interim orders granted earlier by this Court, I am inclined to direct the Station House Officer, Kaikaluru police Station, not to arrest the petitioners, who are A.2, A.3 and A.4 pending investigation or filing of final report in Cr.No.61 of 2011.
10 Accordingly, these criminal petitions are dismissed. As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions, pending if any in these two Criminal Petitions, shall stand closed.
T. SUNIL CHOWDARY, J.
Date: 16.09.2014.
Kvsn
[1] AIR 1960 SC 866
[2] AIR 1992 SC 604