The Court can quash proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C if the allegations do not constitute any offence, but the power should be used sparingly and only to prevent abuse of process or to secure ends of justice.

ORDER :

In this Criminal Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C, the petitioners/A.1 to A.4 seek to quash the proceedings against them in Crime No.74 of 2013 of Alipiri Police Station, Tirupati Urban, for the offence under Sections 464, 465, 467, 471 and 420 read with 34 IPC.

2. The private complaint filed by the 2nd respondent herein, was referred to the Police by the learned IV Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Tirupati under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C for investigation, which was registered as Crime No.74 of 2013 and investigation is reported pending.

3. The brief facts of the complaint are that the complaint mentioned A to C schedule properties belong to the 2nd respondent and the 1st petitioner/A.1 filed a suit for specific performance in O.S.No.9 of 2013 under agreement of sale dated 02.07.2009 executed by the 2nd respondent for a sale consideration of Rs.15.00 lakhs and paid a sum of Rs.10.00 lakhs on the date of agreement of sale as advance and subsequently, paid Rs.4.00 lakhs on 25.03.2010 and made endorsement on the rear side of the agreement of sale and the balance sale consideration of Rs.1.00 lakh will be paid at the time of the registration. It is further alleged that the 2nd respondent never executed any agreement of sale in favour of the 1st petitioner/A.1, and figured the petitioners 2 and 3/A.2 and A.3 as attestors and 4th petitioner/A.4 as scribe of the agreement of sale and all the petitioners/A.1 to A.4 with connivance, forged the alleged agreement of sale and with a dishonest intention, showed the same as a genuine document, in order to grab away the subject property. All the accused, with a common intention, at the inception, created a forged and fabricated document by forging the signature of the 2nd respondent and shown the same as genuine. When the 2nd respondent approached the Police and presented a report, they refused to receive the same stating that it is purely a civil dispute. Therefore, the 2nd respondent presented a private complaint before the IV Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Tirupati and the same was forwarded to the Police. A case in Crime No.74 of 2013 was registered by Alipiri Police Station, Tirupati and the same is now pending for investigation. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioners/A.1 to A.4 filed the present criminal petition seeking to quash the proceedings in Crime No.74 of 2013 of Alipiri Police Station, Tirupati. 4. Heard Sri Y.V.Ravi Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioners/A.1 to A.4 and Sri P.M.Mithileswara Reddy, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the 1st respondent/State. None appeared for the 2nd respondent/Complainant.

5. Fulminating the complaint allegations as false and motivated, the learned counsel for the petitioners would firstly argue that the complaint allegations, even if are accepted to be true, they would disclose the civil disputes between the parties and in fact, the civil suit is pending between the parties in O.S.No.9 of 2013 on the file of IV Additional District Judge, Tirupati, which was filed by the 1st petitioner/A.1 against the 2nd respondent for specific performance. Further, he would submit that the allegations set out in the complaint do not constitute any offence against the petitioners/A.1 to A.4. He would further submit that the complaint discloses a civil dispute and a civil suit was filed by the 1st petitioner making the similar grievance. He would thus submit that continuation of criminal proceedings is nothing but an abuse of process of the Court and therefore, the F.I.R., is liable to be quashed.

6. Sri P.M.Mithileswara Reddy, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the 1st respondent/State would submit that the 2nd respondent filed a complaint before the learned Magistrate and the same was forwarded to the Station House Officer, Alipiri Police Station and a case in Crime No.74 of 2013 was registered against the petitioners herein. Further, he would submit that the alleged agreement of sale was brought into ex