ORDER : NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA, J. Petitioner – Accused No.2 in C.C. No. 21 of 2023 (Crime No. 199 of 2014 of Cybercrimes Police Station, Hyderabad) (old C.C.No. 1 of 2016) on the file of the IX Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad at Kukatpally for the offences under Sections 120B, 406, 420, 468, 471, 201 read with Section 101 IPC. and Sections 35, 66(c)(d), 72 (B), 74 of IT Act states that initially, her name was not arrayed in the FIR (registered based on the complaint of her brother dated 26.09.2014). In the said complaint, the allegation is that Accused No.1 had applied for digital signature with TATA Consultancy Services in the name of the 2nd respondent complainant and obtained his digital signature by playing fraud and forgery and thereafter, filed Form 32 showing the reconstitution of Board of Directors and allotment of shares. 1.1. It is stated, as per charge sheet dated 02.01.2006, all the allegations are directed against Accused No.1 and in order to falsely implicate petitioner herein, it is alleged that she accompanied Accused No.1 to the office of Accused No.3 and except the bald and vague allegation, there is no specific overt act directly involving her in the allegation relating to the act of committing forgery of the signature of L.W.1 on the Application for obtaining digital signature certificate. Other allegation against petitioner is that she had accessed along with Accused No.1 the company e-mail. Except stating that, it is not stated as to how she would together with Accused No.1 opened e-mail. 1.2. It is also stated, petitioner along with Accused No.1 filed Criminal Petition No. 6247 of 2016 for quashing C.C.No. 1 of 2016 and the said Petition was dismissed. Thereafter, in 2019, police filed Crl.M.P.No. 164 of 2019 in C.C.No. 1 of 2016 seeking permission to undertake further investigation in the light of the alleged new evdience. After obtaining permission vide order dated 22.03.2019, a supplementary charge sheet was filed by the police on 17.08.2020. A perusal of the said charge sheet shows that statement of LW5 was again recorded which is nothing but reinvestigation but not further investigation. After obtaining permission vide order dated 22.03.2019, a supplementary charge sheet was filed by the police on 17.08.2020. A perusal of the said charge sheet shows that statement of LW5 was again recorded which is nothing but reinvestigation but not further investigation. In view of the supplementary charge sheet filed by the police and consequent discharge of Accused No.4 by the Court, the case against petitioner is liable to be quashed for the reasons that the only allegation against petitioner is that she was present at the time of submitting the Application hard copy as stated above to Accused No.4. Once Accused N.4 is discharged on the ground that she has not violated any rules and guidelines regarding verification of the Application and genuineness of the Application, the role of petitioner does not have any relevance and merely because she is the wife of Accused No.1, she cannot be treated to be a part of alleged conspiracy. It is further stated petitioner and her husband (A1) filed Crl.M.P.No. 678 of 2022 in C.C.No. 21 of 2023 but the said Application was dismissed on the ground that the point or grounds on which accused are sought to be discharged are all questions of fact and law to be considered only during the trial and they can agitate all those grounds in the final hearing of the case after trial is concluded. In those circumstances, petitioner prays this Court to quash C.C.No. 21 of 2023. 2. Heard Sri Ch. Shravani, learned counsel for petitioner as well as learned Public Prosecutor on behalf of respondents. 3. It is borne out by record that earlier petitioner and her husband (Accused No.1) filed Criminal Petition No. 6247 of 2016 to quash C.C.No. 1 of 2016 on the file of the XVI Metropolitan Magistrate, Kukatpally at Miyapur, Cyberabad. The said Petition was filed on the ground that allegations made in the complaint on their face value would not constitute offences punishable under Sections 120B, 406, 420, 468, 471, 201 read with Section 109 of IPC and Sections 35, 66(C&D), 72(B), 74 of IT Act; on the ground alone, proceedings in C.C.No. 1 of 2026 are liable to be quashed. It is further urged that petitioners came to know that on 23.11.2013, complainant and his brother filed C.P.No. 93 of 2013 on the file of the Company Law Board, Chennai under Sections 397, 398 read with Sections 401 and 403 of the Companies Act, 1956 alleging that petitioners illegally and unlawfully took control over the company from them, hence, the criminal proceedings in C.C.No. 1 of 2016 cannot simultaneously be prosecuted and the dispute is totally within the purview of the Company Law Board and when the matter is seized of by the Company Law Board, continuation of proceedings before the criminal Court is nothing but abuse of process of law. This Court in an elaborate order turned down the contention of petitioners that there was no material against them for the offence alleged against them. It was also held that pendency of company petitions before Company Law Board in C.P.No. 93 of 2013 and C.P.No. 73 of 2015 filed by the de facto complainant and petitioners respectively would not come in the way to proceed against petitioners in criminal Court since offences allegedly committed by them are triable by the criminal Court and the Company Law Board has nothing to do with the same. 4. Now the grievance of petitioner is that after dismissal of the above Criminal Petition, police filed supplementary charge sheet. Under the guise of filing the said charge sheet, the statement of LW5 was again recorded and it is nothing but reinvestigation but not further investigation. 5. From a perusal of the material on record, it is clear that N.Rajaram Reddy (complainant) and his brother incorporated a private limited company under the name and style of Sridhanada Laboratories Private Limited under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956 engaged in the business of manufacture of pharmaceutical bulk drugs and drug intermediates and has its manufacturing unit at I.D.A.Bollaram. Accused No. 1, who was an Additional Director of the company ceased to be a Director by virtue of operation of law on 29.09.2012 on which date, the Annual General Meeting of the company was held. In the said meeting, complainant and his brother did not pass any resolution re-appointing Accused No.1 as a Director. The Company informed the Registrar of Companies about petitioner No.1 ceasing to be a Director by filing necessary Form – 32, which was uploaded on 25.11.2012. In the said meeting, complainant and his brother did not pass any resolution re-appointing Accused No.1 as a Director. The Company informed the Registrar of Companies about petitioner No.1 ceasing to be a Director by filing necessary Form – 32, which was uploaded on 25.11.2012. However, Accused No.1 started fabricating and forging documents with a view to grab and usurp the company’s property for his personal gain. He therefore, applied for digital signature with Tata Consultancy Services and obtained the complainant’s digital signature by fraud and forgery and as per the records of ROC, the Digital Signature Serial No.52252ED58C92572674OE dated 05.03.2013. He used complainant’s name by forging signature on the application form and uploaded the returns/documents on to the site of the Ministry of Corporate Affairs. By these series of fraudulent acts, Accused Nos. 1 and Accused No.2 (wife of Accused No.1 and sister of complainant) and others usurped the control over the company. It is pertinent to note that it is complainant’s brother who has the digital signature of the company and who is authorized by the Board of Directors to upload returns/ resolutions/ documents of the company to the site of the Ministry of Corporate Affairs. Having obtained digital signature certificate in complainant’s name, Accused No. 1 proceeded to fabricate minutes of the meetings of the Board of Directors of the company to show as if a meeting of Board of Directors of the company was held on 01.10.2012 and as if himself, Accused No.2 and others were appointed as Additional Directors. Pursuant to fabricated minutes, he uploaded Form No.32 as also the alleged minutes of the meeting of the Board of Directors purportedly held on 01.10.2012. A perusal of the said minutes clearly shows that the signature of complainant was forged. Accused No.1 had also filed extract of the minutes of the meeting allegedly held on 01.10.2012 to show as if resolutions were passed inducting accused as Additional Directors. The fabricated nature of Form No.32 and alleged minutes of the purported Board Meeting can be established from the fact that the Board of Directors filed Form No.32 on 25.11.2012 with the Registrar of Companies informing about vacation of office by petitioner No.1 by operation of law. 6. The fabricated nature of Form No.32 and alleged minutes of the purported Board Meeting can be established from the fact that the Board of Directors filed Form No.32 on 25.11.2012 with the Registrar of Companies informing about vacation of office by petitioner No.1 by operation of law. 6. The statement of L.W.2 Sri N. Raghu Ram Reddy who is brother of complainant shows that himself or his brother never convened any such board meetings wherein Accused No.1 andhis wife were induct ed as the Managing Director and the Executive Director respectively ofi the company. It is cleasrl that Accused 1 and 2 and Srinivasa Rao Marikanti hatched a conspiracy to wrest control of the company from them and with that view, had started fabricating documents. 7. Further, in Criminal Petition No. 6247 of 2016 filed by petitioners to quash the proceedings in C.C.No. 1 of 2016 on the file of the XVI Metropolitan Magistrate, Kukatpally at Miyapur, this Court observed that further investigation revealed that petitioners captured the major shares in the company by illegal allotment and taken over the entire management; getting such allotment based on forged documents, creating false resolutions with the help of Company Secretary and Chartered Accountant for their unlawful gain i.e. allotment of 40,00,000 shares in the name of petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 and their children, on its face value would constitute offences punishable under Sections 420, 468, 471 and 201 IPC. Since they created documents by illegal means with a dishonest intention. However, the dishonest intention is a question of disputed fact and when there is an allegation in the charge sheet that petitioners with dishonest intervention committed those acts itself is sufficient ground to proceed against petitioners. 8. Having considered the above, this Court is of the opinion that the specific allegations against petitioners prima facie attract the ingredients of the offences alleged against them Truth or otherwise of the allegations would only come out during the course of trial, therefore, this is not a fit case to exercise inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the proceedings, at this stage. 9. In this connection, it is apt to note some judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court. 9. In this connection, it is apt to note some judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court. In Neeharika Infrastructure Private Limited v. State of Maharashtra , (2021) 19 SCC 401 , the Supreme Court relying on its previous decisions has laid down the following factors to be considered while exercising the powers under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. : “.... iv) The power of quashing should be exercised sparingly with circumspection, in the 'rarest of rare cases'. (The rarest of rare cases standard in its application for quashing under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is not to be confused with the norm which has been formulated in the context of the death penalty, as explained previously by this Court); v) While examining an FIR/complaint, quashing of which is sought, the court cannot embark upon an enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the FIR/complaint; vi) Criminal proceedings ought not to be scuttled at the initial stage; vii) Quashing of a complaint/FIR should be an exception and a rarity than an ordinary rule; viii) Ordinarily, the courts are barred from usurping the jurisdiction of the police, since the two organs of the State operate in two specific spheres of activities. The inherent power of the court is, however, recognised to secure the ends of justice or prevent the above process by Section 482 Cr.P.C. ix) The functions of the judiciary and the police are complementary, not overlapping; x) Save in exceptional cases where non-interference would result in miscarriage of justice, the Court and the judicial process should not interfere at the stage of investigation of offences. xi) Extraordinary and inherent powers of the Court do not confer an arbitrary jurisdiction on the Court to act according to its whims or caprice; xii) The first information report is not an encyclopedia which must disclose all facts and details relating to the offence reported. Therefore, when the investigation by the police is in progress, the court should not go into the merits of the allegations in the FIR. Police must be permitted to complete the investigation. It would be premature to pronounce the conclusion based on hazy facts that the complaint/FIR does not deserve to be investigated or that it amounts to abuse of process of law. Police must be permitted to complete the investigation. It would be premature to pronounce the conclusion based on hazy facts that the complaint/FIR does not deserve to be investigated or that it amounts to abuse of process of law. During or after investigation, if the investigating officer finds that there is no substance in the application made by the complainant, the investigating officer may file an appropriate report/summary before the learned Magistrate which may be considered by the learned Magistrate in accordance with the known procedure; xiii) The power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is very wide, but conferment of wide power requires the court to be cautious. It casts an onerous and more diligent duty on the court; xiv) However, at the same time, the court, if it thinks fit, regard being had to the parameters of quashing and the self-restraint imposed by law, more particularly the parameters laid down by this Court in the cases of R.P. Kapur (supra) and Bhajan Lal (supra) has the jurisdiction to quash the FIR/complaint. xv) When a prayer for quashing the FIR is made by the alleged accused, the court when it exercises the power under Section 482 Cr.P.C., only has to consider whether or not the allegations in the FIR disclose the commission of a cognizable offence and is not required to consider on merits whether the allegations make out a cognizable offence or not and the court has to permit the investigating agency/police to investigate the allegations in the FIR." 10. Similarly, in Skoda Auto Volkswagen India Private Limited v. The State of Uttar Pradesh , (2021) 5 SCC 795 , the Hon’ble Apex Court categorically held that the High Courts in exercise of its inherent powers under Section 482 of Cr.P.C has to quash the proceedings in criminal cases in rarest of rare cases with extreme caution. 11. In the light of the above and also in the light of the settled law, the Criminal Petition is dismissed. 12. Consequently, miscellaneous Applications, if any shall stand closed.