JUDGMENT R. Raghunandan Rao, J. - The petitioner is the 2nd accused in Crime No.59 of 2021 at Mylavaram Police Station, YSR Kadapa District, for offences under Sections 409, 467, 468 & 477(a) r/w. 34 of Indian Penal Code. 2. The allegations in the complaint are that the 1st accused, who was the then Tahsildar of Mylavaram Mandal had illegally and unauthorizedly made changes in Web-land revenue records where by Government lands in various villages had been shown as patta lands in the names of various persons and their source of title was shown as inheritance. The petitioner herein, was an outsourcing employee, who was working as a computer operator in the office of the Tahsildar. She was shown as the 2nd accused on the allegation that she had assisted the 1st accused in carrying out these unauthorized and illegal changes in the revenue entries. 3. The petitioner has approached this Court by way of the present Criminal Petition for quashing the said complaint against her on the ground that the she was only an outsourcing computer operator, who had carried out the instructions of 1st accused, who was the Tahsildar of the Mandal and she had only followed the instructions given to her. 4. Sri P. Gangaiah Naidu, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of Sri. G. Bala Rangaiah, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that there are no allegations against the petitioner in the complaint except for the statement that she was an outsourcing computer operator, who had carried out the changes in collusion with the 1st accused. He would submit that the petitioner was an outsourcing employee who was required to follow the instructions of the Tahsildar to carry out changes as per the instructions of the Tahsildar. The learned Senior Counsel would submit that the authority to make such changes was the Tahsildar and the petitioner, except making changes as directed by the Tahsildar, had no knowledge as to whether such changes are in accordance with the record and whether such changes can be made or not. He further submits that the petitioner had been unnecessarily dragged into the whole affair without any basis. 5. A perusal of the complaint would show that there are no allegations in the complaint against the petitioner except the allegation that the unauthorized changes had been carried out by her in collusion with the 1st accused. He further submits that the petitioner had been unnecessarily dragged into the whole affair without any basis. 5. A perusal of the complaint would show that there are no allegations in the complaint against the petitioner except the allegation that the unauthorized changes had been carried out by her in collusion with the 1st accused. The question of whether that there was a collusion between the petitioner and 1st accused and whether the petitioner was only carrying out the instructions of the 1st accused without any intention to cause any loss to the Government are matters of fact which require to be investigated before any conclusion can be drawn. It would also have to be noted that, Prima facie, no case appears to be made out against the petitioner. However, the present petition has been filed against the FIR and it may not be appropriate to quash the complete at this stage as further material may come out in the course of investigation. 6. In the circumstances, with a view to balance the interest of both the prosecution as well as the petitioner, it would be appropriate to dispose of this Criminal Petition with a direction to the investigating officer to complete the investigation without taking any coercive steps of any nature against the petitioner. 7. Accordingly, this Criminal Petition is disposed of. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.