ORDER :

D.V.S.S. Somayajulu, J.

1. This Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioner/accused under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to quash the proceedings in Crime No. 105 of 2019, on the file of Challapalli Police Station, Krishna District, against the petitioner/accused. The offences alleged are under Sections 447, 465, 468, 471, 474, 417 and 419 of Indian Penal Code.

2. Heard, Sri Prabhala Rajasekhar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Sri B. Srinivas Rao, learned counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent and the learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the 1st respondent-State.

3. This case has a very long history. The complainant is one Radhika Devabhaktuni, the daughter of one Sri Vidhya Sagar. She has filed a private complaint, alleging the offences under Sections 417, 419, 465 of IPC, etc., were committed by the accused. The learned Magistrate took cognizance, forwarded the complaint to the police. The police registered FIR No. 105 of 2019 for the offences under Sections 447, 465, 468, 471, 474, 417 and 419 of Indian Penal Code r/w Section 156(3), of Criminal Procedure Code. Questioning the same, the present petition is filed.

4. The essential issue raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the case is hopelessly barred by time. He submits that a reading of the private complaint talks about an alleged fabricated and forged letter, dated 29-01-1998, executed by Vidhya Sagar, the father of the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that on the basis of the dates available that the complaint is barred by time and that the learned Magistrate took cognizance mechanically without an application of mind. He points of the following:

(a) The letter executed on 29-01-1998 whereas the private complaint was filed in 2018;

(b) He points out that the letter is referred in the plaint in O.S. No. 275 of 2001 on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Avanigadda by the very same complainant. He draws the attention of this Court in para-7 of the plaint wherein the letter supposedly executed by Vidhya Sagar is mentioned and it is also clearly stated that the alleged letter is fabricated and forged. It is also stated Vidhya Sagar never signed on the letter and that the contents of the letter are not scribed by Vidhya Sagar and that they would amount to be acted.

(c) In reply to this plaint, a written statement was filed in November, 2002 wherein there is an express reference to this letter, dated 29-01-1998 in paragraph-9.

(d) The plaint in O.S. No. 275 of 2001 was then amended and additional paragraph-7(a)&,(b) were added. Paragraph-7(b) was added as per orders, dated 01-08-2008 and the letter, dated 29-01-1998 is referred to as a "forged letter".

(e) To this, an additional written statement was filed on 16.02.2009 wherein the letter, dated 29-01-1998 was again discussed in length.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner argues that both the parties including the complainant were aware of the existence of this letter prior to 2001 itself when the plaint was filed. Alternatively, he submits that the written statement of November, 2002 contains an express reference of this letter, which is again reiterated in the amended plaint and the additional written statement. Therefore, the learned counsel submits that from 2001 onwards and latest by 2008, the averments are dear that the letter is "forged". This is an alternative argument. The learned counsel still lays stress on the plaint filed in 2001 by father of the plaintiff itself wherein he mentions that the alleged letter is a fabricated and forged letter. The complainant, who is 2nd respondent herein is also added as a party to the suit. Learned counsel states that the dispute is purely a civil dispute and that it is for the civil Court to decide all the issues raised including the alleged forgery. He also submits that as per the reading of the complaint that is filed, an Expert was already appointed and he also gave an opinion about the alleged forg