THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY Crl.P.No.3045 of 2006 Date of Order: 03-09-2010 Between: Botla Manga ..Petitioner and 1.The State of A.P. rep. by its P.P., Hyderabad and another ..Respondents The Court made the following Order: THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY Crl.P.No.3045 of 2006 Oral order: Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and also learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent No.1. In spite of service of notice none appeared for the 2nd resonant/complainant. This petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short “Cr.P.C.”) is to quash the proceedings initiated against the petitioner, who is shown as accused No.2, in C.C.No.19 of 2004 pending on the file of Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate (East & North), Rangareddy District at L.B.Nagar registered for the offence punishable under Sections 420 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code (for short “IPC”). A reading of the complaint allegations goes to show that accused No.1, husband of the petitioner (A2), issued two cheques bearing No.180754 for Rs.60,000/-, dated 08-11-2003 and bearing No.180746 for Rs.43,000/-, dated 08-11-2003, which were returned with an endorsement “insufficient funds” when presented by the complainant. Except stating that accused No.1 is running the real estate business under the name and style “Sri Bhavani Agency and Surya Sai Enterprises” at Mallapur in the name of accused No.2/petitioner herein, there is no allegation against the petitioner. If the complainant is aggrieved for return of cheques issued by A1, he can proceed against A1 under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act; the complainant has not taken steps to file a compliant under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act but filled O.S.No.407 of 2005 against accused No.1 (husband of the petitioner) for recovery of amount covered by cheques issued by him and the same is pending. Admittedly, on filing the above complaint by the complainant, the same was referred to the police, who after due investigation filed the charge sheet, which also do not disclose that petitioner/A2 is in any way connected with the commission of offence, except stating that A1 is running the real estate business under the name and style “Sri Bhavani Agency and Surya Sai Enterprises” at Mallapur and when the compliant went to the house of A1, who is running the real estate business, he (A1) threatened him and cheated him. As the complaint allegations and the charge sheet do not disclose any inducement by A2 or she threatened the complainant with any injury to his person, reputation or property, as specified in Section 503 IPC to punish under Section 506 IPC, continuing the proceedings against the petitioner is nothing but abuse of process of law. In view of the same, the proceedings initiated against the petitioner/A2 in C.C.No.19 of 2004 by the Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate (East & North), Rangareddy District at L.B.Nagar are hereby quashed. The Criminal Petition is accordingly allowed. _________________ A.GOPAL REDDY, J. 03-09-2010 Murthy