ORDER : HARINATH N. J. The criminal petition is filed seeking to quash FIR.No.224 of 2022, dated 18.05.2022 on the file of Chandragiri Police Station for the alleged offence under Section 420, 506 read with 34 of IPC. 2. The petitioner is arraigned as Accused No.2 in the above crime. The accusation made against the petitioner and other accused is that the de facto complainant is the owner of the property of the land in question and the petitioner who is A-2 along with A-4 and A5 obtained registered sale deed from the de facto complainant while he was in intoxication state in respect of the said land and the de facto complainant never intended to sell the said land to them and as such he was cheated by the petitioner and other accused. 3. The main grievance against the petitioner is that the petitioner got executed sale deed for land admeasuring Ac.9.34 cents of Rangampet Village belonging to the petitioner. It is a specific case of the 2 nd respondent that the petitioner under the guise of execution of document relating to land admeasuring Ac.9.34 cents had concealed the documents pertaining to the land at Rangampet mango Garden. It is stated that the same came to the knowledge of the 2 nd respondent for obtaining Encumbrance Certificate (EC). 4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the complaint is filed at a belated stage and that there is no truth in the allegation that the petitioner played fraud on the 2 nd respondent and stealthily got executed the sale deed relating to the mango garden belonging to the petitioner. It is also submitted that the 2 nd respondent did not take this ground in the civil suit filed for injunction vide OS.No.9 of 2022. It is submitted that the suit was subsequently withdrawn and that no further steps were taken seeking cancellation of the sale deed etc., 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner places reliance on Babu Venkatesh and others Vs. State of Karnataka and another , [ (2022) 5 SCC 639 ] the abnormal delay in filing a complaint after a period of one and half year from the date of filing of written statement was considered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and the criminal case was quashed. The learned counsel for the petitioner places reliance on Sardar Ali Khan Vs. The learned counsel for the petitioner places reliance on Sardar Ali Khan Vs. State of Utta Pradesh, through Principal Secretary, Home Department and another , [ (2020) 12 SCC 51 ] , the Hon’ble Supreme Court dealt with the issue of maintainability of a criminal case when a civil suit is pending on the same subject. It was held that when the suit was filed in the year 2008, filing a criminal complaint in the year 2012 alleging forgery and impersonation was held as impermissible and the criminal case was quashed. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner further places reliance on Dilawar Singh Vs. State of Delhi , [ (2007) 12 SCC 641 ] , the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that delay in filing a complaint would have to be viewed with suspicion and delay would at times speak fatal to prosecution. 7. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent appears virtually online and submits that the investigation has been stayed by virtue of an interim order passed by this Court on 17.06.2022. It is submitted that a petition to vacate the interim order was filed soon after by the 2 nd respondent. It is submitted that the investigation ought to have been completed as several factual aspects would come out only after investigation is completed. 8. It is also submitted that the 2 nd respondent had filed OS.No.9 of 2022 seeking bare injunction against the petitioner as he was interfering with the possession of the 2 nd respondent. The 2 nd respondent realized the fraud played on him by the petitioner and others and as such withdrew the OS.No.9 of 2022 on 30.07.2022 and filed OS.No.76 of 2022 seeking the relief of declaration of ownership and cancellation of sale deed. It is also submitted that the 2 nd respondent has taken all the pleas at para 16 of the plaint for maintaining the suit seeking the relief of cancellation of registered sale deed dated 21.10.2019. The criminal case was filed prior to filing of the civil suit. 9. It is submitted that the sale deed was stealthily got executed by the accused. It is also submitted that there are as many as 21 cases pending against the petitioner as is noted in the remand report and that the DC Sheet No.838 is maintained against the petitioner. 9. It is submitted that the sale deed was stealthily got executed by the accused. It is also submitted that there are as many as 21 cases pending against the petitioner as is noted in the remand report and that the DC Sheet No.838 is maintained against the petitioner. It is also submitted that the registration of the sale deed bearing document No.10855 of 2019, dated 21.10.2019, registered at SRO, Chandragiri is a sham document without passing of sale consideration. 10. It is submitted that ends of justice would not be met if the investigation is scuttled at the preliminary stage itself and prays for dismissing the quash petition. 11. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State and the learned counsel for the 2 nd respondent. Perused the material on record. 12. The allegations levelled against the petitioner relating to fraudulently signing of documents would have to be investigated. Perused the disputed sale deed. As seen from the recitals of the sale deed an amount of Rs.1,13,60,000/- is said to be paid by the petitioner and two others to the 2 nd respondent in cash. The disputed sale deed also bears the thumb impressions of the executants and the claimants apart from the witnesses. 13. It is also not in dispute that the 2 nd respondent executed a deed relating to the property situated at Madanapalli vide Document No.377 of 2019 on the joint names of the 2 nd respondent and one P.Nagaraju and the allegation that the process of re-registration of the said property in favour of the petitioner, the petitioner had played fraud and got executed a sale deed for an extent of Ac.Ac.9.34 cents. It is also alleged that the petitioner has subsequently sold one acre of land to G.Kumar Lalji on 28.12.2020 vide document No.199 of 2021. 14. The demonetisation was announced on 08.11.2016. Execution of a sale deed for land admeasuring Ac.9.34 cents for allegedly passing on the entire sale consideration of Rs.1,13,60,000/- in cash would lead to several unanswered questions on the executed document. 15. Investigation by the police would reveal the factual aspect involved and the circumstances under which the disputed sale deed was executed can be arrived at by the police. 15. Investigation by the police would reveal the factual aspect involved and the circumstances under which the disputed sale deed was executed can be arrived at by the police. The judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner do not come to the rescue of the petitioner as the facts therein and the facts are on hand are divergently variable. This Court is of the considered view that ends of justice would be met if the police are given a free hand in conducting a fair investigation and filing of a final report/charge sheet after completion of investigation. 16. On the above grounds this Court is not inclined to entertain the criminal petition filed by the petitioner. Accordingly, the criminal petition is dismissed. The IA.No.2 of 2022 is hereby allowed. The interim order granted on 17.06.2022 stands vacated. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stands closed.