IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRAPRADESH AT HYDERABAD HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL PETITION No.711 of 2009 DATE:05.08.2010 Between: N.Anand Raju …… Petitioner And: The State of A.P. rep. By the Public Prosecutor And another. …..Respondents HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL PETITION No.711 of 2009 ORDER : The petitioner is accused of offences punishable under Sections 406 and 420 I.P.C in C.C. No.466 of 2008 on the file of XVII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad. Transactions between the petitioner and the 2nd respondent/defacto-complainant are relating to loans said to have been obtained by the accused from the defacto-complainant under pronotes. It is alleged that towards discharge of the debt, the accused gave six cheques to the defacto-complainant. Out of those six cheques, the defacto-complainant presented two of them for encashment and they were dishonoured. Therefore, he filed C.C. Nos.362 of 2008 and 365 of 2008 on the file of XVIII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad. Both the said C.Cs were dismissed by that Court under Section 256 Cr.P.C and the accused/petitioner was acquitted in those two cases on 30.09.2009. It is stated by the petitioner’s counsel that the said cases were not restored by any appellate or revisional Courts. 2) The defacto-complainant presented four other cheques also for encashment and they were dishonoured for want of sufficient funds. But in spite of it, the defacto-complainant did not file any cases against the petitioner under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. He had chosen to present a private complaint alleging offences under Section 406 and 420 I.P.C against the petitioner. It is alleged that utilising innocence of the defacto- complainant and by mesmerising his psychological disorder, the accused took cash of Rs.1,50,000/- from the defacto-complainant and failed to repay the same within two months as promised. The allegations taken on their face value do not disclose statutory facts relating to offences punishable under Section 406 and 420 I.P.C. A simple loan transaction between the parties cannot give rise to cause of action for filing a criminal case, unless it is one under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. This Court finds that the dispute between the parties is one which is purely of civil in nature. 3) In the result, the Criminal Petition is allowed quashing proceedings in C.C. No.466 of 2008 on the file of XVII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad. _______________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU, J August 5, 2010 KSH