WP/16207/2003 of Smt. Movva Usha Rani W/o. Ramakrishna Vs State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by on 29 December 2008

ORDER:

The petitioner challenges registration of FIR No.129 of 2001against her by the Station House Officer, Governorpet P.S.,Vijayawada, on a complaint submitted by the second respondent. Thesecond respondent alleged that the petitioner and 12 others, who werearrayed as accused in her complaint, had forged her signature andbrought into existence a General Power of Attorney, dated 21.08.1990,in respect of the properties in various survey numbers of KondapurVillage, Serilingampalli Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, held by Sri oneMovva Veera Raghavaiah. The petitioner submits that the secondrespondent did not mention the date of her knowledge in thecomplaint, and unless the same is mentioned, the complaint ought notto have been entertained, much less there was any justification for thefirst respondent to register the FIR. It is also stated that even if thefacts mentioned in FIR are taken on their face value, no case is madeout and the FIR is liable to be quashed.

Respondents 1 and 2 filed separate counter-affidavits. Theyraised an objection as to the maintainability of the writ petition. It isstated that subsequent to the filing of the writ petition, the final reportwas also submitted to the trial Court and the truth or otherwise of theallegations contained in the FIR is to be examined only during thetrial.

Heard Sri Minnikanti Laxmi Prasad, learned counsel for thepetitioner, learned Government Pleader for Home for the firstrespondent and Sri B.Sudhakar Reddy, learned counsel for thesecond respondent.

It is only in rare and exceptional cases that this Court wouldentertain writ petitions against FIRs and quash the same in exercise ofjurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Basically, it isfor the concerned Court to pronounce upon the truth or otherwise of the allegations made against an accused, after conducting the trial. Oneof the circumstances under which this Court can interfere with FIRs is,where the complaint, even if taken on its face value, does not discloseany ground to prosecute the accused. There are also instances wherethe facts mentioned do not bring about a crime as defined under therelevant provisions of law.

In the instant case, the second respondent alleged that thepetitioner and other accused have brought into existence a GeneralPower Attorney by forging her signature. It is true that the secondrespondent did not mention the date of her knowledge about theGeneral Power Attorney, which is said to have been executed on21.08.1990. That, however, is a matter, which needs to be examinedduring the course of investigation. In case the investigation does notdisclose valid grounds, there shall not be any occasion to file a chargesheet in the form of a final report.

In the instant case, this Court refused to stay the furtherproceedings in the matter. On the other hand, specific permission wasaccorded for filing of charge sheet. After the charge sheet was filed,the petitioner assailed the same by filing Crl.P.No.2919 of 2006. Three other accused in the same case have also filed similar criminalpetitions under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure toquash the proceedings in C.C.No.725 of 2005. This Court passed acommon order, dated 06.02.2007 and dismissed the petitions.

Once this Court had dismissed the criminal petitions filed underSection 482 of Cr.P.C., to quash the proceedings, after the chargesheet is filed, virtually nothing remains to be decided in this writpetition against the registration of FIR. The case has crossed thestage of FIR and no procedural irregularity was found with the filing ofcharge sheet.

Hence, the Writ Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order asto costs.

_______________________

Dt.29.12.2008

GJ

L.NARASIMHA REDDY, J