IMPORTANT POINT
The central legal point established in the judgment is that the continuation of criminal proceedings based on allegations of fabricated documents and false evidence must be supported by sufficient evidence and must not amount to an abuse of process of law.

JUDGMENT

1. This Criminal Petition is filed under Sec. 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure by the petitioner - accused to quash Cr.No.358 of 2015 of Vanasthalipuram Police Station registered against him for the offences under Ss. 191, 192, 463, 467, 465 of the Indian Penal Code.

2. The facts in brief as can be gathered from the record available before this Court are as hereunder:

a) The respondent Nos.2 and 3 - complainants have filed a private complaint on the file of learned VII Metropolitan Magistrate, Ranga Reddy District at Hayathnagar alleging that Complainant No.1 - respondent No.2 is the sister and Complainant No.2 - respondent No.3 is the brother - in- law of the petitioner-accused, have advanced hand loan to the petitioner, who in discharge of the same has issued the cheques. The said cheques were returned dishonoured and on which, respondent - complainant has filed complaint under Sec. 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act vide C.C.Nos.249, 250 and 251 of 2011 on the file of learned V Special Magistrate Court at Hasthinapuram, which were re-numbered subsequently as C.C.Nos.289, 290 and 291 of the 2014 on the file of learned II Special Magistrate Court at Hasthinapuram.

b) Respondent No.2-Complainant No.1 has filed C.C.No.291 of 2014 in respect of dishonour of cheque for Rs.5.00 lakhs; Respondent No.3-Complainant No.2 has filed C.C.No.289 of 2014 in respect of dishonour of cheque for Rs.1.00 lakh; daughter of complainants by name Mrs.A.Chaitanya has filed C.C.No.290 of 2014 in respect of dishonour of cheque for Rs.1.00 lakh against the petitioner-accused for the offence under Sec. 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. All the cases have been ended in acquittal vide judgment dtd. 30/12/2014. Aggrieved by the same, the respondent Nos.2 and 3 have preferred appeals vide CRL.A.No.107 and 108 of 2015 respectively on the file of learned V Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar.

c) In addition to filing of the appeals, the respondent - complainant has filed private complaint against the petitioners under Sec. 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure on the file of learned VII Metropolitan Magistrate, Ranga Reddy District at Hayathnagar and same was forwarded under Sec. 156 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure to the Police concerned and thereafter the Police, Vanasthalipuram has registered a case in Crime No. 358 of 2015 of Vanasthalipuram Police Station for the offences under Ss. 191, 192, 463, 467, 465 of the Indian Penal Code and issued FIR.

d) According to the de-facto complainant, in the said complaint, during the examination in chief of DW1, the petitioner-accused gave false evidence with fabricated document i.e., receipt - cum - undertaking, which is marked as Ex. D1 in C.C.No.250 of 2011 (new C.C.No.291 of 2014). Said document was fabricated forging the signature of complainant No.1.

e) Aggrieved by the order of taking cognizance, the petitioner-accused has filed the present criminal petition to quash Crime No. 358 of 2015 of Vanasthalipuram Police Station on the following grounds:

i) The crime registered under Ss. 191, 192, 463, 467, 465 of the Indian Penal Code is not maintainable. The Complainants have suppressed the facts that the cases filed by them against the petitioner-accused were ended in acquittal and also suppressed about the pendency of the appeals.

ii) There is no legal bar with regard to execution of Ex.D1 when the date of purchase of the stamp is prior to execution of document.

iii) During the course of trial in criminal cases filed under Sec. 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, the respondent Nos.2 and 3 have filed petition under Sec. 45 of the Evidence Act to send Ex. D1 to handwriting expert. The said application was allowed and Ex.D1 was sent to forensic science laboratory for comparison of admitted signature of Respondent No.2. FSL Authorities made a request to send contemporaneous signatures of respondent No.2 for the particular period. But respondent No.2 failed to sen