ORDER This criminal petition is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing further proceedings against the petitioner A-4 in C.C. No. 255 of 2008 on the file of the I Additional Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Narasaraopet. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and 2nd respondent Perused the record. 3. The 2nd respondent herein-Andhra Bank Credit Card Centre, represented by its Manager, filed a private complaint before the I Additional Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Narasaraopet against the petitioner and 4 others, alleging the offences under Sections 406, 409, 420, 468, 474 and 120(B) read with 34 IPC and the learned Magistrate forwarded the same to the police under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. and II Town PS, Narasaraopet, registered it as Cr. No. 3 of 2006 and after due investigation filed a charge sheet against all the accused and the same was taken cognizance by the learned Magistrate in C.C. No. 255 of 2008. According to the complainant, in the course of developing their business and in the area of extending credit card facilities to the customers, the bank has engaged the services of A-1, who established the Credit Mobilizing Agency in the name and style of R.K. Associates of which A-1's wife A-3 and brother-A-4 are partners and that A-1 also established Credit Card Verification Agency in the name of M/s. Tirumala Agency with A-5 and one Syamkumar-L.W. 7 as partners and thus exercised control over the mobilizing agency and also verifying agency. It is alleged that in the name of R.K. Agencies, A-1 mobilized 116 credit cards and they were verified by M/s. Tirumala agency and it was found that A-1 created fake salary certificates of L.Ws. 13 to 17 and forged the signatures of L.W.19 and also affixed forged seals and stamps. 4. During the course of enquiry by the complainant it was found that A-1 without handing over the credit cards to the real owners, swiped them and generated fake bills and utilized those amounts for his own use and caused wrongful loss to L.Ws. 13 to 17 to a tune of Rs. 23,00,000/-. It is further alleged that the bank got conducted a detailed enquiry through L.Ws. 13 to 17 to a tune of Rs. 23,00,000/-. It is further alleged that the bank got conducted a detailed enquiry through L.Ws. 1, 3, 4 and during the said enquiry, it was established that A-1 has played fraud on the bank and also customers and cheated them of huge amounts through the two agencies established by them in the name of his kith and kin to a tune of Rs. 26,10,000/- by using fake certificates and documents. It is further alleged that some of the salary certificates produced by A-1, which were found to be vague were forwarded by A-3 and A-4, who are partners of R.K. Associates. 5. The petitioner-A-4 seeks to quash further proceedings against him. Even according to the prosecution, he was only a partner of mobilizing agency and has nothing to do with the verification of the documents, which is the job of other agency. It is to be noted that the petitioner-A-4 is none else than the brother of A-1. According to the prosecution, the two agencies i.e., RK Agency and Tirumala Agency, one meant for application processing and other one verification of the application, are both established by A-1 in the name of his kith and kin, including the petitioner-A-4 and thus, the partners of the two agencies, who are closely relating to A-1 were hand in glove with A-1 in the commission of the alleged offence. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner A-4 would submit that the petitioner was only a sleeping partner and therefore, he cannot be held responsible for the day to day business of the firm and in that connection, he relied upon the decision of this court in Smt. Vunna Visali v. State of A.P. (1) 2001 (1) ALT (Crl.) 511 (A.P.) = 2001 (1) ALD (Crl.) 894. In the above case, the petitioner therein, a woman was found to be the sleeping partner and therefore held to be not responsible for day to day business of the firm. In the present case, the petitioner-A-4 was the managing partner of R.K. Associates, besides being brother of A-1 and specific allegation is made to the effect that he has forwarded the fake certificates produced by A-1 knowing them to be fake. 7. In the present case, the petitioner-A-4 was the managing partner of R.K. Associates, besides being brother of A-1 and specific allegation is made to the effect that he has forwarded the fake certificates produced by A-1 knowing them to be fake. 7. For the same reason, the decision cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner in Smt. Gattamaneni Prameela v. Smt. Avula Hymavathi (2) 1997 (2) ALT (Crl.) 210 (AP.) = 1997 (2) ALD (Crl.) 1 (A.P.), was also not applicable. 8. Learned counsel for the 2nd respondent complainant would rely on the recent decision of the Apex Court in Sushil Suri v. CBI (3) AIR 2011 SC 1713 , wherein the accused were allowed to have cheated Punjab and Sind Bank by resorting to forgery and fabrication of documents for the purpose of securing hire purchase loan, it was held that 'inherent powers of the court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. cannot be invoked to quash proceedings when it involved a serious economic offence against the society causing loss to the exchequer and merely because dues of the bank have been paid up, the appellant cannot be exonerated from the criminal liability. 9. The police after due investigation have filed a detailed charge sheet against the accused, wherein, specific allegations have been made, prima facie attracting the ingredients of the alleged offences, even as against the petitioner-A-4. The truth or otherwise of the said allegations however is a matter to be considered on evidence that may be adduced during the course of trial. Having regard to the gravity of the nature of the offense alleged and in view of the fact that specific allegations are made against the petitioner-A-4 also regarding his alleged role and participation in the commission of the offences, it is considered not at all a fit case, where inherent powers of the court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. can be invoked to quash further proceedings. There are absolutely no valid or sufficient grounds to quash further proceedings against the petitioner-A-4 in C.C. No. 255 of 2008. 10. In the result, the criminal petition is dismissed.