ORDER : HARINATH.N, J. 1. The criminal petitions are filed seeking quash of CC.Nos.590 of 2017, 567 of 2017 and 554 of 2017 on the file of IV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Visakhapatnam. The criminal petitions are filed primarily on the ground that the police on the complaint filed by the 2 nd respondent after a lapse of ten years from the date of the alleged offences have registered cases and filed charge sheets. 2. The other contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the petitioners are alleged to have committed offences under Sections 420, 465, 468, 175 of IPC. It is submitted that when the allegations of forgery are made, the police ought to have failed to secured the alleged forged documents during the course of investigation. It is submitted that the police have not obtained any expert opinion to lay a charge of forgery against the petitioners. However, the police in the charge sheet have stated that the original share certificates, share transfer deeds and share transfer registers are in possession and custody of the accused and that, they could not be seized as the petitioners have not submitted them to the police and have concealed them. An adverse inference was drawn that the petitioners have committed forgery of documents and the charge sheet is filed. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that a Memorandum Of Understanding dated 26.12.2005 was entered between SK Big Star Foods Limited, represented by Mr.M.N.Reddy, Managing Director and T.A.N.Gupta (2 nd petitioner in CRLP.No.911 of 2023). The first party therein agreed to transfer 1,50,000 equity shares to the second party or his nominees on no value basis. The 2 nd petitioner expressed his intention to take over the company SK Big Star Foods Limited and settle the OTS Dues to Bank of India. 4. It is submitted that the 2 nd petitioner was appointed as a Director of SK Big Star Foods Limited on 29.03.2006 and the relevant Form 32 was also filed before the Registrar of Companies. The annual return of the year 2013 would indicate that the shares were transferred in favour of the 2 nd petitioner and others. 4. It is submitted that the 2 nd petitioner was appointed as a Director of SK Big Star Foods Limited on 29.03.2006 and the relevant Form 32 was also filed before the Registrar of Companies. The annual return of the year 2013 would indicate that the shares were transferred in favour of the 2 nd petitioner and others. It is also submitted that one K.Trinadha Reddy claiming himself as the Executive Director of SK Big Star Foods Limited, had addressed a letter to the Registrar of Companies, Hyderabad on 13.09.2013 alleging that the 2 nd petitioner and the 5 th petitioner have effected changes in the Constitution of Board of the Company and sought rectification. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that some of the share holders filed CP.12 of 2015 and CP.18 of 2016 seeking to rectify the Register of Members of the Company to reflect the names of petitioners as the owners of the equity shares which according to them, they were holding. Both the petitioners were dismissed by the National Company Law Tribunal, Hyderabad. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioners also submits that when the shares were transferred in terms of the Memorandum of Understanding executed by M.N.Reddy on behalf of SK Big Star Foods Limited during his lifetime. M.N Reddy passed away on 03.07.2012. The 2 nd respondent could not have filed a complaint after lapse of more than ten years by relying on the paper advertisement dated 02.01.2014 relating to transfer of 99.6% of shares to the 1 st petitioner. It is claimed that the shareholders of SK Big Star Foods Limited have informed the 2 nd respondent that they had never transferred any shares to anyone. The 2 nd respondent has filed a complaint on 24.04.2016 alleging offences under Sections 420, 468 and 471 of IPC. 7. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the complainant has taken inconsistent stands in the complaint and that the charge sheet was filed before the regular Magistrate Court instead of the Court of Special Judge for Economic Offences Cases. 8. It is submitted that CP.17 of 2014 was filed before the National Company Law Tribunal, Hyderabad seeking to set aside the appointment of respondents 2, 3 and 4, 12, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21 and 22 as directors of the 1 st respondent company therein and other reliefs. 8. It is submitted that CP.17 of 2014 was filed before the National Company Law Tribunal, Hyderabad seeking to set aside the appointment of respondents 2, 3 and 4, 12, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21 and 22 as directors of the 1 st respondent company therein and other reliefs. The Tribunal had disposed the Company Petition by setting aside the appointment of Directors as prayed for and also set aside the transfer of 1,44,920 shares which were illegally transferred from the 1 st petitioner to respondents 4 to 16 and directed the 1 st respondent to rectify the register. It is submitted that the 2 nd respondent had illegally transferred the shares which was rectified by an order of the National Company Law Tribunal. 9. The learned counsel appearing for the 2 nd respondent submits that the quash petitions filed are not maintainable as they are filed after commencement of trial and after cross examination of several witnesses. It is also submitted that the petitioners have not challenged the cognizance taken order and as such submits that the criminal petitions deserves to be dismissed. 10. It is also submitted that the orders of the National Company Law Tribunal were challenged before the Appellate Tribunal by order dated 19.04.2018, the petitioners were directed not to alienate or transfer any property of the Appellant/Company without prior permission of the Appellate Tribunal. The said direction would also include the shares of the company. 11. The leaned counsel also submits that the petitioners have refused to submit the original share certificate(s) and have concealed the same with the intent to defeat the claim of the 2 nd respondent. The investigating officer also conducted a search on the premises of the accused and could not lay his hands on the alleged forged documents. It is also submitted that the police have completed the investigation and filed a charge sheet by categorically ascertaining the involvement of the petitioners in commission of the offences and the petitioners have to undergo trial and prove their innocence before the trial Court. 12. It is submitted that there are several facts which are involved which would have to be determined by the trial Court after a full-fledged trial. It is also submitted that when several questions of fact are involved, the petitioners cannot seek quash of the case and as such prays for dismissing the petitions. 13. 12. It is submitted that there are several facts which are involved which would have to be determined by the trial Court after a full-fledged trial. It is also submitted that when several questions of fact are involved, the petitioners cannot seek quash of the case and as such prays for dismissing the petitions. 13. The learned counsel for the 2 nd respondent had places reliance on Sethuraman Vs. Rajanickam , (2009) 5 SCC 153 Girish Kumar Suneja Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation , (2017) 14 SCC 809 the Hon’ble Supreme Court had held that the orders passed in interlocutory applications passed in petitions filed under Section 311, 91 and 243(2) of Cr.P.C., ought not to be interfered with. This judgment is relied upon by the learned counsel for the 2 nd respondent to submit that the criminal revision cases are not maintainable. Kaptan Singh Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and others , [ (2021) 9 SCC 35 ] , the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that while entertaining the quash petitions the High Court is not required to go into the merits of the allegations or decide on the merits as the High Court is not exercising the jurisdiction of an Appellate Court and that inherent jurisdiction of the High Court has been exercised squaringly and in exceptional cases. 14. Heard the learned counsel for petitioners, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor the State and the learned counsel for the respondent. Perused the material on record. 15. The police have filed the charge sheet by concluding that the accused have denied to furnish the share certificates and evidently the police have not made any effort to investigate into the allegation of forgery. The allegedly forged document was not collected by the police during the course of investigation. Adverse inference as drawn against the petitioners by the police in the charge sheet for laying the charge sheet against the accused for the offence under section 468 of IPC cannot sustain without the allegedly forged document sent to the FSL for Expert Opinion. In the absence of such an exercise the police could not have laid a charge sheet against the accused for the offence under Section 468 of IPC. 16. In criminal jurisprudence adverse inference cannot be drawn against the accused for nonproduction of the alleged forged document. In the absence of such an exercise the police could not have laid a charge sheet against the accused for the offence under Section 468 of IPC. 16. In criminal jurisprudence adverse inference cannot be drawn against the accused for nonproduction of the alleged forged document. Adverse inference in absence of the allegedly forged document which is not seized as a material object by the police during the course of investigation is unsustainable. In a criminal case when the prosecution alleges forgery and cheating the burden heavily lies on the prosecution to prove the guilt of accused beyond all reasonable doubt. In absence of the prosecution failing to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt and filing the charge sheet by drawing adverse inference cannot sustain the scrutiny of law and logic. 17. This Court places reliance on Uniworth Textiles Limited Vs. Commissioner of Central Exercise , [ (2013) 9 SCC 753 ] , the Hon’ble Supreme Court held at para 24 is as follows ; 24. Further, we are not convinced with the finding of the Tribunal which placed the onus of providing evidence in support of bona fide conduct, by observing that “the appellants had not brought anything on record” to prove their claim of bona fide conduct, on the appellant. It is a cardinal postulate of law that the burden of proving any form of mala fides lies on the shoulders of the one alleging it. This Court observed in Union of India v. Ashok Kumar [ (2005) 8 SCC 760 : 2006 SCC (L&S) 47] that: (SCC p. 770, para 21) “21. … It cannot be overlooked that the burden of establishing mala fides is very heavy on the person who alleges it. The allegations of mala fides are often more easily made than proved, and the very seriousness of such allegations demands proof of a high order of credibility.” 18. Ranjit Kumar Haldar Vs. State of Sikkim , [ (2019) 7 SCC 684 ] , the Hon’ble Supreme Court held at paras 13 and 14 is as follows ; 13. The general rule is that the burden of proof is on the prosecution. Ranjit Kumar Haldar Vs. State of Sikkim , [ (2019) 7 SCC 684 ] , the Hon’ble Supreme Court held at paras 13 and 14 is as follows ; 13. The general rule is that the burden of proof is on the prosecution. Section 106 of the Act was introduced not to relieve the prosecution of their duty but it is designed to meet the situation in which it would be impossible or difficult for the prosecution to establish facts which are especially within the knowledge of the accused. 14. In Shambu Nath Mehra v. State of Ajmer [Shambu Nath Mehra v. State of Ajmer, AIR 1956 SC 404 : 1956 Cri LJ 794] , the Court held as under : (AIR p. 406, paras 10-11 & 13) “10. Section 106 is an exception to Section 101. Section 101 lays down the general rule about the burden of proof. ‘101. Burden of proof.—Whoever desires any court to give judgment as to any legal right or liability dependent on the existence of facts which he asserts, must prove that those facts exist.’ Illustration (a) says— ‘A desires a court to give judgment that B shall be punished for a crime which A says B has committed. A must prove that B has committed the crime.’ 11. This lays down the general rule that in a criminal case the burden of proof is on the prosecution and Section 106 is certainly not intended to relieve it of that duty. On the contrary, it is designed to meet certain exceptional cases in which it would be impossible, or at any rate disproportionately difficult, for the prosecution to establish facts which are “especially” within the knowledge of the accused and which he could prove without difficulty or inconvenience. The word “especially” stresses that. It means facts that are pre-eminently or exceptionally within his knowledge. If the section were to be interpreted otherwise, it would lead to the very startling conclusion that in a murder case the burden lies on the accused to prove that he did not commit the murder because who could know better than he whether he did or did not. It means facts that are pre-eminently or exceptionally within his knowledge. If the section were to be interpreted otherwise, it would lead to the very startling conclusion that in a murder case the burden lies on the accused to prove that he did not commit the murder because who could know better than he whether he did or did not. It is evident that that cannot be the intention and the Privy Council has twice refused to construe this section, as reproduced in certain other Acts outside India, to mean that the burden lies on an accused person to show that he did not commit the crime for which he is tried. These cases are Attygalle v. R. [Attygalle v. R., 1936 SCC OnLine PC 20 : AIR 1936 PC 169 ] and Stephen Seneviratne v. R. [Stephen Seneviratne v. R., 1936 SCC OnLine PC 57 : (1936) 3 All ER 36, 49] 13. We recognise that an illustration does not exhaust the full content of the section which it illustrates but equally it can neither curtail nor expand its ambit; and if knowledge of certain facts is as much available to the prosecution, should it choose to exercise due diligence, as to the accused, the facts cannot be said to be “especially” within the knowledge of the accused. This is a section which must be considered in a commonsense way; and the balance of convenience and the disproportion of the labour that would be involved in finding out and proving certain facts balanced against the triviality of the issue at stake and the ease with which the accused could prove them, are all matters that must be taken into consideration. The section cannot be used to undermine the well-established rule of law that, save in a very exceptional class of case, the burden is on the prosecution and never shifts.” 19. Maya Gopinathan Vs. Anoop S.B.and Another , 2024 SCC OnLine SC 609 the Hon’ble Supreme Court held at para 20 is as follows ; 20. Law is well-settled that inference from the evidence and circumstances must be carefully distinguished from conjectures or speculation. Maya Gopinathan Vs. Anoop S.B.and Another , 2024 SCC OnLine SC 609 the Hon’ble Supreme Court held at para 20 is as follows ; 20. Law is well-settled that inference from the evidence and circumstances must be carefully distinguished from conjectures or speculation. Since the mind is prone to take pleasure to adapt circumstances to one another and even in straining them a little to force them to form parts of one connected whole, there must be evidence - direct or circumstantial - to deduce necessary inferences in proof of the facts in issue. There can be no inferences unless there are objective facts, direct or circumstantial, from which to infer the other fact which it is sought to establish. In some cases, the other facts can be inferred, as much as is practical, as if they had been actually observed. In other cases, the inferences do not go beyond reasonable probability. If there are no positive proved facts - oral, documentary, or circumstantial - from which the inferences can be drawn, the method of inference would fail and what would remain is mere speculation or conjecture. Therefore, when drawing an inference of proof that a fact in dispute is held to be established, there must be some material facts or circumstances on record from which such an inference could be drawn. In civil cases including matrimonial disputes of a civil nature, the standard of proof is not proof beyond reasonable doubt ‘but’ the preponderance of probabilities tending to draw an inference that the fact must be more probable. 20. Chunni Bai Vs. State of Chhattisgarh , [2025 SCC OnLine SC 955] , the Hon’ble Suprmee Court held at para 25 is as follows ; 25. It is well settled that in any criminal case, the burden of proof is on the prosecution to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt in order to secure conviction of the accused, that is to say that no reasonable doubt can be said to have arisen in the judicial mind of the court after appreciating the evidence presented, and the outcome reached by the prosecution is the only possible outcome in the given facts and circumstances of the case. This legal position is necessary for both the ingredients of “actus reus” and “mens rea”, though “mens rea” can sometimes be inferred from the nature of “actus reus”, and as far as “mens rea” is concerned, intention or guilty knowledge is certainly the most important facet. 21. The law on the burden of proof is unambiguous and crystal clear, the prosecution has failed to discharge the statutory duty of establishing the case beyond all reasonable doubt. The concept of burden of proof in such criminal proceedings is not a mere formality, it is a statutory obligation. 22. On these considerations, this Court is of the considered view that CC.Nos.590 of 2017, 567 of 2017 and 554 of 2017 on the file of IV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Visakhapatnam deserve to be quashed, accordingly the criminal petitions are allowed. 23. The Criminal revision cases are offshoots of the proceedings in the CC`s pending before the trial court, now that this Court has quashed the CC.Nos.590 of 2017, 567 of 2017 and 554 of 2017 on the file of IV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Visakhapatnam, the CRLRC.Nos. 777, 778, 785, 786, 789, 791, 793, 797, and 856 of 2022 are hereby closed. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.