The main legal point established in the judgment is that when a dispute is essentially of a civil nature, criminal proceedings should not be allowed to proceed, and the power to quash criminal proceedings should be exercised sparingly and with circumspection.

JUDGMENT :

1. This Criminal Petition is filed under Sec. 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short "Cr.P.C.") by the petitioner/A.1 seeking to quash the proceedings in Crime No.40 of 2017 of Savalyapuram Police Station, Guntur, registered for the offence under Ss. 181, 218, 420, 467, 468 and 471 read with 34 IPC, and Sec. 82 of the Registration Act.

2. The private complaint filed under Sec. 156(3) Cr.P.C. by the 2nd respondent herein was referred to the Police by the learned Judicial First Class Magistrate, Vinukonda, Guntur District, which was registered as a case in Crime No.40 of 2017 and investigation is reported pending.

3. The brief facts leading to filing of the present criminal petition, in a nut-shell, are as under:

(i) The petitioner/A.1 and A.2 are the brother and sister and A.3 is a public servant working as a Village Revenue Officer, Potluru, A.5 is the brother-in-law of A.2 and A.4 and A.6 are the close associates of the petitioner/A.1. The husband of the 2nd respondent/de facto complainant worked in Municipality and retired from service and settled in their village. He got landed property of Ac.1.40 cents in D.No.356 of Potluru Village. Her husband died intestate on 30/7/2015. After his death, petitioner/A.1 and A.2 made several illegal attempts to knock away the aforesaid property. The Government started a scheme of land acquisition for formation of railway track from Nadikudi to Srikalahasti and acquired the said land to an extent of Ac.1.10 cents out of Ac.1.40 cents belongs to the husband of the 2nd respondent and awarded compensation of Rs.22.00 lakhs to the family of the 2nd respondent/de facto complainant. The petitioner/A.1, A.2 and A.3 colluded together and forged the thumb impression of the 2nd respondent/de facto complainant and withdrew the said amount of Rs.22.00 lakhs by manipulating the revenue records. The petitioner/A.1 and A.2 fabricated a false document on 22/7/2016 in collusion with A.4 to A.6 to an amount of Rs.2,70,000.00 worth and registered in favour of A.2 for the rest of the land by the petitioner/A.1 vide Doc.No.4503 of 2016.

(ii) After coming to know the illegal acts, the 2nd respondent/de facto complainant questioned the petitioner/A.1 and A.2 and they have not given proper reply and threatened her with dire consequences and she obtained the forged documents under Right to Information Act with the help of L.W.2(Prabhakara Rao). All the accused colluded with each other and caused huge loss to the 2nd respondent/de facto complainant. As such, the 2nd respondent/de facto complainant presented a private complaint and the same was forwarded to the Police. The crime was investigated about the complicity of the accused in commission of offence. Pending investigation, the petitioner/A.1 filed the present petition seeking to quash the criminal proceedings against him in the above crime.

4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner/A.1; learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State and the learned counsel for the 2nd respondent.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner/A.1 would submit that the allegations made in the complaint are purely civil in nature and instead of approaching the Civil Court, the 2nd respondent/de facto complainant initiated criminal proceedings to pressurize the parties to settle the compensation amount. He would further submit that initiation of criminal proceedings is nothing but an abuse of process of law and the allegations made in the complaint are purely civil in nature are sought to be given the colour of a criminal offence in collusion with the L.W.2 (Prabhakara Rao), who is the another son of the 2nd respondent/de facto complainant, to wreak vengeance against the petitioner/A.1. Further, he would submit that during the life time of the husband of the 2nd respondent/de facto complainant, he executed an unregistered Will on 25/7/2015 in favour of petitioner/A.1, which was duly attested by the attestors and after his death, the said Will came into for