* 1 * W.P. 3478.2010 13.7.2011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 3478 OF 2010 Mr. Subhankar Das ..... Petitioner V/S. Mr. Mahadevan Shankar & anr. ..... Respondents * * * * Mr. Harshad Bhadbhade, Adv.for the petitioner. Mr. Mihir Gheewala and R. Sharma, Advocate for respondent no.1. Mrs. P.H. Kantharia, APP for the State-respondent no.2. CORAM :- Smt. R.P. SondurBaldota, J. 13th July, 2011. P.C. :- 1. This petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and under Section 482 Criminal Procedure Code for quashing of the criminal complaint bearing C.C. No.115 of 2010 filed by respondent no.1 and pending in the Court of the Metropolitan Magistrate, 34th Court, Kurla, Mumbai for the offence punishable under Section 420 Indian Penal Code. 2. The short facts of the case are that the petitioner and respondent * 2 * W.P. 3478.2010 13.7.2011 no.1 are childhood friends. The petitioner allegedly represented to respondent no.1 that he was in financial crisis in his company M/s. Sagarika Acoustronics and needed loan of Rs.20,00,000/-. He insisted upon the cheques being issued in the name of the company and not in his personal name though the loan was actually taken by him. The loan was to be repaid on the nominal interest of 12% per annum. Later, in the year 2007 when respondent no.1 demanded return of the amount, the petitioner created some false stories that he was going to start manufacturing business etc. Thereafter, he left Mumbai and went to Calcutta. Respondent no.1 later learnt that the petitioner had borrowed the money for enjoyment and spent the same over bad habits like gambling and betting in horse races. He therefore alleges that the petitioner had, since inception, no intention to repay the amount. 3. Mr. Bhadbhade, the learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that, the dispute in the complaint is essentially a civil dispute arising out of civil transaction of giving a hand-loan by resp ondent no.1 to the petitioner. Secondly, no inducement whatsoever was given by the petitioner to respondent no.1 for handing over the amount. Thirdly, the fact that part of the amount was paid to Sagarika Constructions would show that the amount was infact taken as loan for tiding over the financial crisis and lastly that there is no intention on the part of the * 3 * W.P. 3478.2010 13.7.2011 petitioner to cheat respondent no.1. 4. As regards the inducement and the intention on the part of the petitioner, the same would be a matter of evidence to be led before the trial Court. Undoubtely, the transaction between the parties of giving a loan by respondent no.1 to the applicant can give rise to civil, as well as, criminal liabilities depending upon the facts of the case. Since, in the instant case it is the allegation of respondent no.1 that he being a close friend of the petitioner was led to believe by respondent no.1 that he was truly in financial crisis and while asking for a loan in the sum of Rs.20,00,000/- and the amount when received allegedly used for the purpose of gambling and betting on horses, it cannot be said that the complaint does not disclose the ingredients of offence. In that circumstance, the proceedings cannot be quashed and the opportunity denied to respondent no.1 to take the prosecution to it’s logical end. This would be a matter of evidence. Hence, the petition is dismissed. [SMT. R.P. SONDURBALDOTA, J]