ORDER: TIRUMALA DEVI EADA, J. This Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioners-accused Nos.1 to 3 seeking to quash the proceedings in Crime No.304 of 2025 on the file of Chilkalaguda Police Station, Hyderabad, registered for the offences under Sections 3 18(4), 336, 336(3), 340(2), 242 and 61(2) read with 3(5) of BNS . 2. Heard Mr. Thakur Ratan Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. Jithender Rao Veeramalla, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent No.1-State and Mr. K.V.L. Narasimha Murthy, learned counsel for the respondent No.2. 3. The crux of the case is that the petitioners-accused are alleged to have created a forged Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) dated 09.08.2023, incorporating an arbitration clause, evaded the work entrusted by the complainant and further initiated the proceedings before an arbitrator. Thus, the complainant lodged a private complaint. 4. Learned counsel for petitioners has submitted that there are no specific allegations against the petitioners herein and that the complaint does not disclose any criminal intent and thus, the continuation of proceedings against the petitioners would be an abuse of process of law. He further submitted that the complainant has failed to discharge its obligation under the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) dated 09.08.2023 and has resorted to level false allegations against the petitioners herein. He further submitted that in terms of Clause 25 of the MOU dated 09.08.2023 despite the best efforts of the petitioners, the disputes could not be resolved. He further submitted that he has served a Seven-day notice upon the complainant on 25.11.2024 followed by a final notice dated 02.12.2024 requesting them to comply with the obligations mentioned in the MOU, but unfortunately, the complainant has never come forward to comply the same. Thereafter, the petitioners with no other alternative invoked Clause 25 of the MOU and thus have approached an Arbitral Tribunal for addressing the disputes and the complainant just to scuttle the legal procedure has started writing derogatory letters to the Tribunal and has further come up with the present complaint with evil intentions. It is only with an intention to create pressure on the petitioners’ company to withdraw the arbitration proceedings, the present complaint is brought into existence. Learned counsel further contended that the respondent No.2-complainant is in the habit of trapping investors, instituting criminal cases and denies payments. It is only with an intention to create pressure on the petitioners’ company to withdraw the arbitration proceedings, the present complaint is brought into existence. Learned counsel further contended that the respondent No.2-complainant is in the habit of trapping investors, instituting criminal cases and denies payments. Therefore, by fling the present case, he is not releasing any amounts in their favour and is harassing them and that the petitioners are innocent of the alleged offences and the contents of the complaint do not constitute any offence as alleged. He, therefore, prayed to quash the proceedings against the petitioners. 5. The learned counsel for the respondent No.2-complainant has submitted that the respondent No.-2 is a registered firm and dealing with Real Estate business and that ONGC has allotted a project to them and the respondent No.2 is in agreement with ONGC. He further submitted that in 2022, the petitioners, approached them to assist in executing the project work of ONGC and that they entered into an SPA dated 03.03.2023. That the said SPA was revoked on 07.08.2023. He submitted that an MOU dated 09.08.2023 was entered into with the accused and the said MOU was signed by one K .Satish on behalf of the complainant. He further submitted that in the said MOU, there was no clause for arbitration. But, however, the petitioners have conveniently brought into existence the forged MOU with an arbitration clause and the said MOU was signed by one Sanjay Kumar Biswas-accused No.4 and he is not the authorized person to sign on behalf of respondent No.2. He has further submitted that the Special Power of Attorney (SPA) that was given to the said Sanjay Kumar was revoked on 07.08.2023. But, the MOU is alleged to have been signed by Sanjay Kumar on 09.08.2023. Learned counsel has further submitted that the original MOU did not bear the signature of Sanjay Kumar, but the MOU which is brought into existence by the petitioners herein bears the signature of Sanjay Kumar on 09.08.2023, which is against the revocation of SPA, therefore, that itself on the face of it shows that the said MOU is forged and fabricated and hence, the matter cannot go before the arbitrator. 6. 6. Learned counsel for the respondent No.2 further submitted that a retired Judge of Allahabad High Court is appointed as an Arbitrator, and that the quash petition itself is not maintainable as the main document itself is disputed and forgery is alleged, and therefore, the criminal proceedings have to be continued and no arbitrator can decide the question of forgery. Hence, he prayed to dismiss the petition. 7. Perused the record. 8. The case of the respondent No.2-complainant is that the complainant is a registered firm dealing with real estate business and during the course of its business, it has participated and became a successful bidder in the tender called for by the ONGC and entered into a project work to execute ‘Construction and Development of 192 Residential Quarters and surrounding areas at Mehasana Asset” and that the complainant has invested and incurred huge amount in the said project. The petitioner No.1- accused No.1, through its Directors and employees approached the complainant stating that they are the local people and can assist the complainant company with their labour and infrastructure and made the complainant believe that accused No.1 company is having vast experience in the construction field. Thus, the complainant agreed and executed an SPA on 03.03.2023 in favour of accused No.4, who happened to be the employer of accused No.1 company referred by the accused No.2. As per the SPA, the accused No.4 has no independent rights to proceed or to take any independent decision and he should act as per the directions of the complainant only. When the complainant gained knowledge that the accused No.1 company is creating letter heads and stamps of the complainant firm and using them without the knowledge and consent of the complainant, the complainant has cancelled the SPA executed in favour of accused No.4 by addressing a letter on 07.08.2023 to accused Nos.1 to 3. 9. Subsequently, upon the strong assurance and commitment given by accused No.1 to 4, again an MOU was executed on 09.08.2023 with accused No.1 and the said MOU was signed by Mr. K. Satish on behalf of the complainant firm and the accused No.3 signed on behalf of accused No.1. 9. Subsequently, upon the strong assurance and commitment given by accused No.1 to 4, again an MOU was executed on 09.08.2023 with accused No.1 and the said MOU was signed by Mr. K. Satish on behalf of the complainant firm and the accused No.3 signed on behalf of accused No.1. While so, on 11.08.2023, the complainant came to know from accused Nos.1 to 3 that the name of accused No.1 Company was changed from M/s.Millennium Infra and Realty Projects Pvt. Ltd., to M/s. Sannverse Railtech Pvt. Ltd., way back on 04.05.2023 itself, which was much prior to execution of the MOU dated 09.08.2023. The accused were silent and not have intimated about the said change of name of their company till 11.08.2023. It was observed by the complainant that accused No.1 was totally negligent in carrying out the work and not showing any progress and was only demanding to make payments irrespective of the slow progress, but still the complainant continued paying the amounts and was corresponding through mails. Subsequently, the ONGC authorities have categorically intimated the complainant that if the work is not completed in time, necessary action will be initiated against the complainant. The said caution notices were brought to the knowledge of accused Nos.1 to 3, but they never cared to give any importance to the said notices. Instead of coming forward to proceed with the work, accused Nos.1 to 3 started addressing letters to the complainant company and its representatives in a threatening manner and finally they intimated that they would come and join to take measurements of the completed work. 10. The complainant received a notice from the Arbitrator on 13.12.2024 stating that the Arbitrator has initiated proceedings vide clause 25 of the MOU dated 09.08.2023. The complainant was shocked to know that an Arbitrator was appointed to resolve the dispute as there was no such clause in the MOU dated 09.08.2023 signed by Mr. K. Satish. On thorough verification, they could learn that the accused have created a document to gain illegally and to cause wrongful loss to the complainant. On verification, they came to know that the said MOU is signed on behalf of the complainant firm by Mr. Sanjay Kumar Biswas, but the said Sanjay Kumar Biswas had no right to execute such document, as the SPA given to him was revoked on 07.08.2023 itself. On verification, they came to know that the said MOU is signed on behalf of the complainant firm by Mr. Sanjay Kumar Biswas, but the said Sanjay Kumar Biswas had no right to execute such document, as the SPA given to him was revoked on 07.08.2023 itself. Thus, all the accused in connivance and collusion with each other have created a second MOU dated 09.08.2023, appointed an Arbitrator and have resorted to malafide practices. Thus, vexed with the attitude of the accused and on learning about the fabricated MOU dated 09.08.2023, the complainant has initiated the legal steps and has filed the complaint by approaching the local police. 11. Thus, prima facie allegations point out against the petitioner that the second MOU dated 09.08.2023 has been forged and created by the accused, wherein arbitration clause exists. The investigation is still in progress. The truth is yet to be unraveled. In case if there is absence of any criminal intent, then the proceedings can be quashed. In the present case, the MOU dated 09.08.2023 is alleged to be forged, which involves a criminal intent. The truth or otherwise in the allegations cannot be decided at the moment and the allegations do specifically point out towards commission of forgery and hence, the same cannot be quashed. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the SPA was very much in force and thus, Sanjay Kumar Biswas has rightly signed the MOU. But, however, the contention of the learned counsel for the respondent No.2 is that it is a forged document and the SPA is not in force. All these issues are triable and the same cannot be decided at the threshold. 12. He further contended that since the petitioners-accused are not heard under Section 223 (1) BNS S, no cognizance can be taken against them. It is pertinent to be observed in this regard that the date of offence is 09.08.2023 and the complaint is filed on 09.01.2025. 12. He further contended that since the petitioners-accused are not heard under Section 223 (1) BNS S, no cognizance can be taken against them. It is pertinent to be observed in this regard that the date of offence is 09.08.2023 and the complaint is filed on 09.01.2025. Since the date of offence is prior to the enactment of BNS S, thus, it was filed under the provisions of IPC and therefore, the procedure that has to be applied falls under Cr.P.C. Somehow, the police have interpreted the sections in terms of BNS in the FIR but, there is no error committed by the Officer while passing the cognizance order under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. since the offences are under the provisions IPC. Therefore, that is not a ground to quash the proceedings. 13. Another ground raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners is that there are no specific allegations against the petitioners. But, the specific allegation against the petitioners is that second MOU dated 09.08.2023 has been forged and created by them. Another ground raised by the learned counsel that there is absence of criminal intent and to cloth the commercial dispute into criminal dispute, the present complaint is lodged, is also untenable, because the element of forgery is the primary allegation and hence, initiation of criminal proceedings would not amount to abuse of process of law in this case. Hence, there are no grounds agitated by the learned counsel for the petitioners to interfere with the process and to quash the proceedings. Hence, it is held that the petition lacks merit and therefore, the same is liable to be dismissed. 14. Accordingly, the criminal petition is dismissed. Miscellaneous Petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed.