IMPORTANT POINT
Criminal proceedings cannot be pursued when the validity of the document in question is already under adjudication in a civil court, to prevent abuse of the judicial process.

ORDER :

V. Sujatha, J.

This criminal petition is filed under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code (for short “Cr.P.C.”) to quash the proceedings in F.I.R. No.167 of 2019 of Thulluru Police Station, Guntur District, registered for the offences punishable under Section 420, 468, 471 read with 34 of Indian Penal Code (for short “I.P.C.”).

2. Petitioners herein are the accused. Respondent No.2 is the complainant. Respondent No.2 filed a complaint in the Thullur Police Station against the petitioners for the offences referred supra alleging that his father - Putty Anjaneyulu is the second son of his grand-father, late Putty Thirupathaiah. one Mr. Putty Hanumantha Rao is the elder brother of his father and Putty Srinivasa Rao is the younger brother and Naga Siromani is the younger sister of his father. His grand-father Sri Putty Thirupathaiah bequeathed Ac.1.00 land from his father Veeraiah. The grand-father of the petitioner, out of his income from the said land, purchased Ac.2.03 cents in his name and Ac.1.45 cents in his wife's name i.e. grandmother of the petitioner. His Grand-mother Smt. Putty Thirupathamma was given Ac.0.66 cents of land as Sridhanam. His father's elder brother Sri Putty Hanumantha Rao is a government teacher and his paternal aunt Nagasiromani was married long back and is residing with her family. His father's younger brother, Sri Putty Srinivasa Rao got registered property of an extent of Ac.5.14 cents of land and Ac.0.08 cents of house site belonging to the grand-father of the petitioner, in his name and his family members vide Document No.6250/2015 of SRO of Tadikonda, dt.28-08-2015. At the time of said registration, Will dated 10.08.1994 with stamp numbers 7266, 7267 and 7268 submitted in the register office were forged with the thumb impressions of his grand-father. The thumb impressions of his grand-father on another Will bearing No. 7267, 7268 and 7269, dated 10.08.1994 were also forged to bequeath properties in favour of his grand-mother. When the thumb impressions on the Will were sent to truth labs, Hyderabad for comparison with original thumb impressions (Doc.1977), they opined, "that the thumb impressions are not identical". The petitioners have been enjoying joint family properties with an intention to cheat the complainant and other family members.

3. It is further alleged that about 2 months prior to the date of complaint, while the complainant along with his brother-in-law, N.Hari going towards Thulluru, petitioner No.1 stopped them on the main road opposite to MRO office, abused them and beat the complainant for meddling with property issues and warned him. Therefore, the complainant requested the police authorities to take action against the petitioner, his wife and his daughter for forging a Will deed with forged thumb impressions of grandfather of the complainant with an intention to cheat the complainant and also requested to take action against Bellamkonda Paparao and Paricherla Satyanarayana for acting as attesting witnesses in the said fabricated Will. Basing on the said complaint, police registered F.I.R. No.167 of 2019 on the file of Thulluru Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 341, 506 and 323 read with 34 of I.P.C.

4. The present petition is filed to quash the said F.I.R.No.167 of 2019 on the ground that the alleged Will dated 10.08.1994 referred in the complaint is proved to be genuine in O.S.No.22 of 2014 on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Mangalagiri, which was filed by the father of the complainant for partition of family properties including the property which was subject matter of the Will dated 10.08.1994, but the said fact of filing O.S.No.22 of 2014 and dismissal of the suit O.S.No.22 of 2014 was suppressed while filing the present complaint. The father of respondent No.2 neither filed any rejoinder disputing the authenticity of the Will nor took steps to send it to expert for opinion. The father of respondent No.2 filed a fake death c