ORDER :

This Criminal Petition, under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, is filed to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.435 of 2014 on the file of the II Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Proddatur.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Soora Venkata Sainath, the learned Special Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for 1st respondent-State and Sri K.Ramamohan, learned counsel for 2nd respondent/defacto complainant.

3. Basing on a report lodged by 2nd respondent/

defacto complainant, police registered a case in crime No.187 of 2013 of II Town police station, Proddatur, and after completion of investigation, laid charge sheet against the petitioner/accused for the offences punishable under Sections 420 and 468 IPC. The allegations in the charge sheet, in brief, may be stated as follows.

One Vazzala Subbanna, who is grandfather of 2nd respondent/defacto complainant, worked as Assistant Divisional Engineer, APSEB and retired from service. He expired about 10 years prior to filing of the police report. He purchased a house site admeasuring Ac.0.07 ‰ cents bearing plot No.228 in survey No.201 of NGO Colony, Proddatur on 09.06.1978 from the Proddatur State Government Employees9 Co-operative House Building Society Limited, Proddatur (for short, 8the House Building Society9) under registered sale deed bearing document No.1710 of 1978. It is alleged that the petitioner/accused created forged document as if grandfather of 2nd respondent/defacto complainant sold away the said house site to him, and on perusal of the Encumbrance Certificate, it came to light that petitioner/accused forged signatures of grandfather of 2nd respondent/defacto complainant and prepared forged document No.1775 of 1995, dated 13.03.1995 at Sub Registrar9s Office, Proddatur and obtained the above house site and that grandfather of 2nd respondent/defacto complainant never sold the said house site.

During the course of investigation, police sent admitted thumb impressions of late Vazzala Subbanna (marked as S1 and S2) along with the thumb impression available in the Thumb Impression Register maintained in the Sub Registrar9s office, Proddatur (marked as Q1) to F.P. Expert, F.P. Bureau, C.I.D., Hyderabad for comparison, and expert gave report dated 11.11.2014 opining that the Thumb Impressions marked as S1 and S2 are not identical with the questioned Thumb Impression Q1, stating that S1 and S2 are twinned loop patterns and Q1 is loop pattern.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that even if the accusations in the charge sheet are accepted as true, no prima facie case for the offences punishable under Sections 420 or 468 IPC is made out. Placing reliance on the information furnished by the Public Information Officer/Assistant Registrar, Divisional Co- operative Office, Proddatur under the RtI Act, 2005, dated 19.03.2015, he contends that as per the Bye-laws of the House Building Society, employees of APSRTC, APSEB and other Boards i.e. other than Government employees, are not eligible to become members of the House Building Society and that there are no members in the Society except Andhra Pradesh State Government employees. He also placed reliance on the Letter dated 06.07.2015 issued by the Public Information Officer and Divisional Engineer, Technical, APSPDCL, Kurnool, wherein it is stated that there is no pensioner by name V.Subbanna, s/o. V.Subbanna, retired as Assistant Divisional Engineer (Hot Lines) in the year 1996. It is his submission that no land has been allocated to grandfather of 2nd respondent/defacto complainant and hence the question of cheating or forging his signatures does not arise, and so, he prays to quash the impugned proceedings.

5. On the other hand, Sri Soora Venkata Sainath, learned Special Assistant Public Prosecutor, so also, the learned counsel for 2nd respondent/defacto complainant contended that allegations in the charge sheet and the material filed therewith, would make out a prima fa