The court quashed the FIR due to lack of necessary legal standing and the excessive delay in filing, indicating abuse of the judicial process.

ORDER :

Juvvadi Sridevi, J.

This Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioner-accused No.2 seeking to quash the proceedings against him in FIR No.253 of 2024 of the Station House Officer, Patancheru Police Station, registered for the offences under Sections 420 , 463, 464, 467, 468 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code (for short ‘ IPC ’).

2. Heard Ms. Y. Sonanjali, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri M.Ramachandra Reddy, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State-respondent No.1 as well as Sri T. Bala Mohan Reddy, learned counsel for the respondent No.2. Perused the record.

3(a). The brief facts of the case are that, on 17.05.2024, the respondent No.2 lodged a complaint stating that he, along with others, is a partner of M/s. Hypack, a duly registered partnership firm. The original partners of the firm were Mr. V. Subba Rao, Smt. V. Gayathri Devi, Smt. A. Koteswari, Ms. M. Indira, and Smt. A. Bhramaramba. The firm, M/s. Hypack, had purchased land admeasuring 2153 square yards situated in Plot No.39-B, Industrial Development Area, Phase-V, Patancheru, from the Andhra Pradesh Industrial Infrastructure Corporation Limited, under a registered sale deed bearing Document No.6672 of 1985 dated 10.05.1985. It is stated that between the years 1990 and 1993, two of the original partners, namely, Kum. M. Indira and Smt. A. Bhramaramba, retired from the firm, and two new partners, Mr. M.K. Gandhi and Mr. V. Kumar, were inducted.

3(b). It is alleged that the accused Nos.1 to 3 subsequently forged the signatures of the original partners and executed an amended partnership deed dated 15.03.2008, falsely recording the withdrawal of the original partners from the firm and showing continuation of only the petitioner-accused No.2 and the accused No. 3 as partners. It is further alleged that Form-V was submitted before the Registrar of Firms showing the original partners as outgoing partners by forging their signatures. The original partners never executed the said amendment of partnership deed, and their signatures were allegedly forged by the accused Nos. 1 to 3. The present and existing partners of the firm were not made parties to the said amendment deed. The Form-V also indicates that the handwriting and ink used under the column “Name and full address of outgoing partners” are identical to the forged signatures of the original partners, thereby clearly establishing the act of forgery committed by the accused Nos. 1 to 3.

3(c). It is further alleged that the PAN cards submitted along with the amendment deed were fabricated and not those of the genuine partners. The forensic report obtained from Truth Labs dated 25.01.2024 also confirmed that the signatures appearing on the alleged amendment deed do not tally with the genuine signatures of the original partners. Subsequently, the land owned by M/s.Hypack was fraudulently sold by the petitioner-accused No. 2 and the accused No.3 in favour of the accused No.1 through a registered sale deed dated 20.01.2020 bearing document No.4419 of 2020.

3(d). It is further alleged that the entire fraudulent scheme was masterminded by the accused No.1, who, taking advantage of the firm’s property being idle and the business remaining non-functional, devised a plan to reconstitute the firm and transfer the property into his own name by creating forged documents with the active assistance of the accused Nos. 2 and 3. It is alleged that the accused Nos.1 to 3 acted in collusion with each other with an intent to wrongfully gain ownership of the firm’s property and to cause corresponding loss to the complainant and other genuine partners. Hence, the respondent No.2 sought necessary legal action against the accused Nos.1 to 3. 04(a). Learned counsel for the petitioner-accused No.2 submitted that he is nothing to do with the alleged offences. All the allegations are false and baseless. The present complaint has been lodged on the vague all