HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY Crl.P. No. 5442 of 2008 DATED: 08.04.2011 Between: Polani Varada Rajeswara Rao .. Petitioner/ Accused And 1. The State of A.P. rep. By its Public Prosecutor 2. Chentha Mohanamma .. Respondents O R D E R:- This Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioner-accused under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking to quash F.I.R.No.97 of 2008 dated 28.05.2008 of Dharmavaram Police Station, Ananthapur District. Briefly, the facts of the case are that the petitioner- accused is none other than brother of the de facto complainant’s husband. The petitioner-accused is dealing in sarees business by running a shop namely Sari Bharathi Silk Emporium at Dharmavaram. He engaged the son of the de facto complainant as Clerk in the shop. Even though the de facto complainant invested a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- to run the business, the petitioner-accused did not share the profits earned in the business with the de facto complainant for two months. While so, on 12.04.2008, the petitioner- accused picked up quarrel with the son and the husband of the de facto complainant, and on 14.04.2008, the petitioner- accused, with the help of some rowdy sheeters, took the de facto complainant, her son and husband to a nearby place forcibly and obtained their signatures on some blank cheques bearing Nos.623989, 623990, 623991, 623992, 623993, 623994 and 623995, and four white papers and also on four promissory notes under threat. Further, they also forcibly trespassed into the house of the de facto complainant and the others pulled her saare and fell her down and threatened them to pay some money. Hence, the de facto complainant gave report to the Circle Inspector, Dharmavaram Police Station, consequently to take necessary action, on the basis of which, the case was registered a case in Cr.No.97 of 2008 for the offences under Sections 354 and 506 IPC against the petitioner-accused on his file. The learned counsel for the petitioner-accused has contended that the matter was settled on 14.04.2008 in the presence of elders to return the capital invested by the petitioner-accused, and on the same day, they paid some cash to the accused, and the son of the de facto complainant also issued some cheques in his own handwriting in favour of the petitioner, and when those cheques were presented by the accused in a nationalized bank for encashment, they were dishonoured for insufficiency of funds and as a counter-blast, the case on hand was got filed. Heard the learned counsel for both the parties and perused the material placed on record. The reasons assigned by the petitioner-accused in the petition are not supported by any material. Purely, there is a question of fact to be decided based on the evidence to be recorded. At this stage, it is difficult for this Court to quash the proceedings in F.I.R. No. 97 of 2008, dated 28.05.2008. Section 482 Cr.P.C. is be resorted to when there is abuse of process of law and unnecessary sufferance of the accused consequently. Therefore, I am of the opinion that no sufficient grounds are made out to quash the proceedings in F.I.R. No. 97 of 2008, dated 28.05.2008 of Dharmavaram Police Station. Hence, this Criminal Petition is dismissed. __________________________ G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY, J 08.04.2011 bcj