HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B. CHANDRA KUMAR Crl.P.No.1172 of 2008 Date: 28-04-2010 Between: Chunduru Reddy Upendra Babu …... Petitioner And S.H.O. Proddutur II town P.S. and another …….. Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.CHANDRA KUMAR Crl.P.No.1172 of 2008 ORDER: This Criminal Petition has been filed to quash the proceedings in F.I.R.No.13 of 2008 on the file of the Proddutur II Town Police Station, Kadapa District. 2. The brief facts of the case are as follows: The second respondent herein filed a complaint before the I Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Proddatur, which has been referred to the police, and the police registered a case for the offences punishable under Sections 193, 196, 199, 200, 209, 409, 410 and 420 of IPC. The specific allegation in the complaint is that the second respondent-complainant is the proprietary concern under the name and style of Sri Maha Lakshmi Fertilizers (hereinafter referred to as ‘Firm’) and doing fertilizers business at Proddatur. The petitioner herein is the co-brother of the second respondent. He joined as unofficial partner and managed the affairs of the Firm during the period from 01-04-2004 to 14-07-2007. Being the proprietor of the firm, the second respondent used to sign blank cheques and handover the same to the petitioner herein for day-to-day business activities. Subsequently, misunderstandings arose between them. However the matter was settled in the presence of elders, as a result of which the petitioner left the business of the second respondent and received the amounts from the complainant on 19-10-2007 and acknowledged the same on 22-10-2007 and to that effect an agreement was executed between the parties on the same day. 3. Initially, the petitioner herein filed a complaint alleging that the second respondent approached him to provide an amount of Rs.5 lakhs for his business purpose and that the petitioner arranged the said amount, on which the second respondent issued a cheque bearing No.730784, dated 22-10-2007 for Rs.5 lakhs and that subsequently, when the cheque was presented, it was bounced. The petitioner herein got issued a legal notice on 27-12-2007 and that the second respondent sent a reply on 11-01-2008 denying the issuance of the cheque. Subsequently, the petitioner filed a complaint against the second respondent for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (for short ‘the Act’). 4. It is alleged that after filing of the said complaint by the petitioner, the second respondent filed a the present complaint against the petitioner alleging that, being the proprietor, he used to sign blank cheques of the Firm and used to handover the same to the petitioner for their business activities and that subsequently, differences arose between them and that the matter was settled and agreement was reached between the parties on 22-10-2007 and that in pursuance of the said agreement, the second respondent paid the amounts. It is also alleged that the petitioner was never issued the said cheque and that subsequently, the second respondent verified the cheque books and found that the petitioner obtained the signatures of the second respondent on the blank cheque bearing No.730784 and subsequently, filled its contents and filed false complaint against the second respondent. 5. The only contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that after the petitioner filed a complaint against the second respondent for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Act, the second respondent filed the present false complaint and therefore, the same may be quashed. 6. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor opposed the Petition. 7. The only point that arises for consideration is whether the impugned proceedings are liable to be quashed. 8. It may be a fact that the petitioner filed a complaint against the second respondent for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Act on 22-01-2008 and the second respondent seems to have filed the present complaint against the petitioner on 29- 01-2008. Whether the allegations made in the present complaint are true or not and whether it is a counterblast to the earlier complaint filed by the petitioner cannot be enquired in these proceedings. What has to be seen is whether the allegations made in the complaint against the petitioner constitute any offence, even if the allegations are taken on their face value, or not. A reading of the allegations made in the complaint does not show that those allegations did not constitute any offence. In view of the same, I hold that there are no grounds to quash the proceedings. 9. Accordingly, the Criminal petition is dismissed. ___________________ B. CHANDRA KUMAR, J Date: 28-04-2010 YCR