ORDER : Juvvadi Sridevi, J. This Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioner-accused No.2 seeking to quash the proceedings against him in FIR No.253 of 2024 of the Station House Officer, Patancheru Police Station, registered for the offences under Sections 420, 463, 464, 467, 468 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code (for short ‘IPC’). 2. Heard Ms. Y. Sonanjali, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri M.Ramachandra Reddy, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State-respondent No.1 as well as Sri T. Bala Mohan Reddy, learned counsel for the respondent No.2. Perused the record. 3(a). The brief facts of the case are that, on 17.05.2024, the respondent No.2 lodged a complaint stating that he, along with others, is a partner of M/s. Hypack, a duly registered partnership firm. The original partners of the firm were Mr. V. Subba Rao, Smt. V. Gayathri Devi, Smt. A. Koteswari, Ms. M. Indira, and Smt. A. Bhramaramba. The firm, M/s. Hypack, had purchased land admeasuring 2153 square yards situated in Plot No.39-B, Industrial Development Area, Phase-V, Patancheru, from the Andhra Pradesh Industrial Infrastructure Corporation Limited, under a registered sale deed bearing Document No.6672 of 1985 dated 10.05.1985. It is stated that between the years 1990 and 1993, two of the original partners, namely, Kum. M. Indira and Smt. A. Bhramaramba, retired from the firm, and two new partners, Mr. M.K. Gandhi and Mr. V. Kumar, were inducted. 3(b). It is alleged that the accused Nos.1 to 3 subsequently forged the signatures of the original partners and executed an amended partnership deed dated 15.03.2008, falsely recording the withdrawal of the original partners from the firm and showing continuation of only the petitioner-accused No.2 and the accused No. 3 as partners. It is further alleged that Form-V was submitted before the Registrar of Firms showing the original partners as outgoing partners by forging their signatures. The original partners never executed the said amendment of partnership deed, and their signatures were allegedly forged by the accused Nos. 1 to 3. The present and existing partners of the firm were not made parties to the said amendment deed. The Form-V also indicates that the handwriting and ink used under the column “Name and full address of outgoing partners” are identical to the forged signatures of the original partners, thereby clearly establishing the act of forgery committed by the accused Nos. 1 to 3. 3(c). The Form-V also indicates that the handwriting and ink used under the column “Name and full address of outgoing partners” are identical to the forged signatures of the original partners, thereby clearly establishing the act of forgery committed by the accused Nos. 1 to 3. 3(c). It is further alleged that the PAN cards submitted along with the amendment deed were fabricated and not those of the genuine partners. The forensic report obtained from Truth Labs dated 25.01.2024 also confirmed that the signatures appearing on the alleged amendment deed do not tally with the genuine signatures of the original partners. Subsequently, the land owned by M/s.Hypack was fraudulently sold by the petitioner-accused No. 2 and the accused No.3 in favour of the accused No.1 through a registered sale deed dated 20.01.2020 bearing document No.4419 of 2020. 3(d). It is further alleged that the entire fraudulent scheme was masterminded by the accused No.1, who, taking advantage of the firm’s property being idle and the business remaining non-functional, devised a plan to reconstitute the firm and transfer the property into his own name by creating forged documents with the active assistance of the accused Nos. 2 and 3. It is alleged that the accused Nos.1 to 3 acted in collusion with each other with an intent to wrongfully gain ownership of the firm’s property and to cause corresponding loss to the complainant and other genuine partners. Hence, the respondent No.2 sought necessary legal action against the accused Nos.1 to 3. 04(a). Learned counsel for the petitioner-accused No.2 submitted that he is nothing to do with the alleged offences. All the allegations are false and baseless. The present complaint has been lodged on the vague allegation that the partnership deed through which the petitioner have been inducted as partners i.e. amendment of partnership deed dated 15.03.2008 and the same has been submitted to the Registrar of Firms but the petitioner has been inducted as partner as ‘incoming partner’ vide partnership deed dated 16.10.2006 and has been continuing thereof till date. 4(b). It is further submitted that the complaint has been filed by the respondent No.2 after a lapse of 16 years contending to be a GPA holder, on concocted facts and allegations. The petitioner had cleared the outstanding dues with the State Bank of Hyderabad wherein the subject property vide document No.6672 of 1985 was mortgaged. 4(b). It is further submitted that the complaint has been filed by the respondent No.2 after a lapse of 16 years contending to be a GPA holder, on concocted facts and allegations. The petitioner had cleared the outstanding dues with the State Bank of Hyderabad wherein the subject property vide document No.6672 of 1985 was mortgaged. The respondent No.2 after noting that the property was released free of encumbrances has been transferred to the accused No.1, only to create cloud over the said property with an evil intention to gain unlawfully filed the present complaint. The sale deed that was executed in favour of the accused No.1 was not challenged. 4(c). The present complaint has been filed by the respondent No.2 who has no locus or any association with the partnership firm, on the alleged ground that he is the General Power of Attorney Holder of the retired partners. The complaint does not contain the particulars of the GPA executed in favour of the respondent No.2. In the absence of any complaint from the said persons whose signatures were alleged to be forged, the act of the police in registering the FIR is non-application of mind and mechanical registration of the FIR. There is no dishonest or fraudulent intention on the part of the petitioner-accused No.2 to cheat the respondent No.2. The accused No.3 is no more. The contents of the FIR do not disclose the required ingredients to attract the offences under Sections 420, 463, 464, 467, 468 read with 34 of IPC. All the allegations are made by the respondent No.2 with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the petitioner and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge. 4(d). With the above submissions, while praying to quash the proceedings against the petitioner-accused, the learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon a decision of the Honourable Supreme Court in Mahmood Ali and others v. State of Uttar Pradesh and others , (2023) 15 Supreme Court Cases 488 wherein at Paragraph Nos.9, 11 and 12 that: “ 9 . We are of the view that even if the entire case of the prosecution is believed or accepted to be true, none of the ingredients to constitute the offence as alleged are disclosed. We are of the view that even if the entire case of the prosecution is believed or accepted to be true, none of the ingredients to constitute the offence as alleged are disclosed. It is pertinent to note that the FIR in question came to be lodged after a period of 14 years from the alleged illegal acts of the appellants. It is also pertinent to note that in the FIR no specific date or time of the alleged offences has been disclosed. 11 . At this stage, we would like to observe something important. Whenever an accused comes before the Court invoking either the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) or extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution to get the FIR or the criminal proceedings quashed essentially on the ground that such proceedings are manifestly frivolous or vexatious or instituted with the ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance, then in such circumstances the Court owes a duty to look into the FIR with care and a little more closely. 12 . We say so because once the complainant decides to proceed against the accused with an ulterior motive for wreaking personal vengeance, etc., then he would ensure that the FIR/complaint is very well drafted with all the necessary pleadings. The complainant would ensure that the averments made in the FIR/complaint are such that they disclose the necessary ingredients to constitute the alleged offence. Therefore, it will not be just enough for the Court to look into the averments made in the FIR/complaint alone for the purpose of ascertaining whether the necessary ingredients to constitute the alleged offence are disclosed or not.” 5. On the other hand, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State-respondent No.1 as well as the learned counsel for the unofficial respondent No.2 contended that there are triable issues and factual aspects to be examined by the learned trial Court and it is not a fit case to quash the proceedings against the petitioner at this juncture and the matter has to be investigated and decided after conducting trial by the learned trial Court and prayed to dismiss this Criminal Petition. 6. 6. Having regard to the submissions made on either side and upon perusal of the record, it is evident that the FIR was lodged by the respondent No.2 claiming to be the General Power of Attorney (GPA) holder of the original partners. However, the complaint does not disclose the particulars, date, or terms of the said GPA. It also does not assert that the persons whose signatures are alleged to have been forged have themselves lodged any complaint, nor does it state that respondent No.2 is a present partner of the firm or is otherwise authorized to lodge the complaint on its behalf. 7. It is evident from the record that the alleged amendment deed is dated 15.03.2008, whereas the present FIR is dated 17.03.2024, lodged after an unexplained delay of more than sixteen years. Even the sale deed executed in favour of the accused No.1 is dated 20.01.2020. It is also pertinent to note that the petitioner-accused No.2 has admittedly discharged the outstanding dues payable to the State Bank of Hyderabad. In these circumstances, it prima facie appears that the present complaint has been lodged after an inordinate and unexplained delay and is an afterthought. 8. Admittedly, the sale deed executed in favour of accused No.1 has not been challenged before any civil court. It is an undisputed fact that accused No.3 is no more, and a copy of the death certificate has been placed on record. A perusal of the partnership deed further reveals that it contains an arbitration clause providing for resolution of all disputes arising thereunder. 9. It is an undisputed fact that accused No.3 is no more, and a copy of the death certificate has been placed on record. A perusal of the partnership deed further reveals that it contains an arbitration clause providing for resolution of all disputes arising thereunder. 9. In State of Haryana and others v. Ch.Bhajan Lal and others , 1992 SCC (SUPP) 1 335 the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that: “In the exercise of the extra-ordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the following categories of cases are given by way of illustration wherein such power could be exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently channelised and inflexible guide myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised: (1) where the allegations made in the First Information Report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused; (2) where the allegations in the First Information Report and other materials, if any, accompanying the F.I.R. do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code; (3) where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or 'complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused; (4) where the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non- cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code; (5) where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused; (6) where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party; (7) where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge. 10. In the present case on hand, as observed supra, there is an inordinate delay of more than sixteen years in lodging the complaint, which remains wholly unexplained. Respondent No.2 has failed to establish his locus standi to institute the complaint on behalf of the other partners, except for a mere assertion that he is the General Power of Attorney holder of the said partners. The core issue revolves around the sale deed executed and registered in favour of the accused No.1, which has not been challenged before the competent civil court. It is an undisputed fact that the accused No.3 had passed away prior to the registration of the FIR. It thus appears that the complaint was lodged as an afterthought, and the Police proceeded to register the FIR without conducting any preliminary enquiry. Hence, the present case squarely falls within the ambit of category No.7 of the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Bhajan Lal case (cited supra). Therefore, the continuation of the criminal proceedings against the petitioner–accused No.2 would amount to an abuse of process of law and is, accordingly, liable to be quashed. 11. Accordingly, this Criminal Petition is allowed and the criminal proceedings against the petitioner-accused No.2 in FIR No.253 of 2024 of the Station House Officer, Patancheru Police Station, are hereby quashed. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.