IMPORTANT POINT
Bar under Section 195(1) Cr.P.C is only for taking cognizance on police final report under Section 173 Cr.P.C by Magistrate under Section 190 Cr.P.C, where forgery committed while the documents in Court custody in relation to the documents. It is to say, there is no bar for registering the Crime and investigation by police.

ORDER (COMMON)

Dr. B. Siva Sankara Rao, J.—All these Criminal Petitions are filed by Petitioners/Accused Nos.1 to 8, 11 & 13 under Section 482 Cr.P.C seeking to quash the proceedings in Crime No.24 of 2014 on the file of Nagarampalem Police Station, Guntur Urban, Guntur District registered for the offences punishable under Sections 120-B, 380, 466 and 468 read with 34 I.P.C., on the report of the two defacto-complainants dated 23.01.2014.

2. The main allegations, in the report presented by the 2nd respondent and his mother shown as 3rd respondent in some of the petitioners (supra) which was registered as a crime as stated supra, are that the one Kodali Lalitha Kumari (A-2) with the active collusion and conspiracy of other accused including her brother and sisters (all 15 in number) stealthily replaced the original title deeds of the property of the defacto-complainants with fake documents through their advocates which were filed as Exs.A-1 (document No.11828/1981) and A-2 (document No.380/1982) in O.S. No.854 of 2007 on the file of the I Additional Junior Civil Judge, (which they came to know after filed application for return of the Exs.A-1 and Ex.A-2), that the same property hurriedly registered to others four sale deeds attested by A-11 & A-12; with the help of a fake notarized will attested and notarized by A-13 to A-15 and by using the stolen original documents; that the accused forcibly dispossessed the respondent Nos.2 and 3 from their property by bribing the public servants belonging to registration and police departments even they obtained injunction order in I.A. No.77 of 2013 in O.S. No.8 of 2013 on the file of IV Additional Senior Civil Judge, Guntur.

3. Heard the learned counsel for respective petitioners as well as the State represented by the Public Prosecutor and also the respondent Nos.2 and 3 appeared in-person and perused the material on record. For the sake of convenience and to avoid confusion in all the four petitions, the petitioners respectively being referred as respective accused while the defacto-complainant as respondent Nos.2 and 3.

4. Undisputed facts in this regard are that A-2 is the wife of one Kodali Atchaiah Chowdary who died issueless on 15.12.2010. A-3 to A-6 are sisters and brother of A-2 and A-7 to A-10 are alleged vendees from A-2 and A-1 is the masterminds behind. The 2nd respondent is son of 3rd respondent, who is the sister of said Atchaiah Chowdary. Said Kodali Atchaiah Chowdary filed a suit in O.S. No.854 of 2007 on the file of I Additional Junior Civil Judge, Guntur against his neighbours for permanent injunction in respect of some of his property situated in Syamala Nagar, Guntur and the same was decreed on 26.10.2009. He filed therein to support his claim the Exs.A-1 and A-2 supra during the course of trial. After demise of said Atchaiah Chowdary, the 2nd respondent filed an implead petition to implead himself as his legal heir. Besides opposing the same, the wife (A-2) of said Atchaiah Chowdary filed an application to implead her as a legal representative of her deceased husband and to discharge the 2nd respondent and the same is pending for adjudication, while so, the A-2 is trying to alienate the properties, the 2nd respondent made an objection before the Sub-Registrar concerned for registration of any documents. Upon the same, the A-2 filed a writ petition in W.P.No.3312 of 2013 before this Court, in which this Court (another bench) directed the sub-Registrar to receive the documents and thereafter the A-2 alienated the property in favour of A-7 to A-10 under four registered sale deeds dated 25.02.2013.

5. The 2nd respondent herein filed a suit in O.S. No.81 of 2013 on the file of V Additional Senior Civil Judge, Guntur disputing the notarized will dated 03.06.2000 said to have been executed by the husband of the A-2-Lalitha Kumari with bequeths in her favour and also seeking to deliver possession of the subject property by impleading the purchasers (the respective accused pe