THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY CRIMINAL PETITION NO.5427 OF 2010 ORDER This petition has been taken out under Section 482 Cr.P.C by K.Ramanjaneyulu seeking to quash the proceedings against him in Cr.No.54 of 2010 of Tenali I Town Police Station, Guntur District, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 506 read with 34 IPC. The second respondent is the de facto complainant. He presented a complaint before the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Tenali, inter alia alleging that he along with K.V.Ramanjaneyulu, who has been arrayed as A1 carried on data operating works and thereupon K.V.Ramanjaneyulu received the amounts from the Department and refused to give his share. The said complaint came to be forwarded by the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Tenali to the Station House Officer, Tenali Town Police Station. Thereupon, the Station House Officer registered a case in Cr.No.54 of 2010 for the offences under Sections 420, 506 read with IPC. Hence this petition. Notice to the second respondent came to be ordered on 23-06-2010. The petitioner was permitted to take out notice to the second respondent. The petitioner took out notice to the second respondent. Despite notice being served, the second respondent-de facto complainant did not choose to enter appearance either in person or through a counsel. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the entire complaint averments do not indicate of the petitioner receiving any money on behalf of the second respondent- de facto complainant and therefore continuation of proceedings against the petitioner in Cr.No.54 of 2010 amounts to abuse of process of law. Learned counsel took me to the complaint presented by the second respondent before the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Tenali, which came to be forwarded to the police under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. I have gone through the complaint averments. The grievance of the second respondent-de facto complainant is against A1-K.V.Ramanjaneyulu. It is averred in the complaint that K.V.Ramanjaneyulu received the amount by way of cheque and got the cheque realized to his account and thereafter, he refused to part with his share to the second respondent-de facto complainant. Except the fact that the petitioner is father of A1 K.V.Ramanjaneyulu, there is no allegation in the complaint that he received any amount relating to the joint business of the second respondent-de facto complainant and A1. In the given facts and circumstances of the case, continuation of the criminal proceedings against the petitioner in Cr.No.54 of 2010 amounts to abuse of process of law. Accordingly, the criminal petition is allowed and the proceedings against the petitioner in Cr.No.54 of 2010 of Tenali I Town Police Station, Guntur District are quashed. __________________________ B.SESHASAYANA REDDY,J rkk Dated: 2-11-2011