IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRAPRADESH AT HYDERABAD HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL PETITION No.6085 of 2009 DATE:04.03.2011 Between: M.Ramakrishna Raju and another …… Petitioners And N.Satyanarayana Raju and another …..Respondents HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL PETITION No.6085 of 2009 ORDER : The petitioners 1 and 2/A-1 and A-2 are accused of offences punishable under Sections 420, 471 and 506(Part-I)/34 I.P.C in C.C. No.2883 of 2008 on the file of I Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Visakhapatnam. Originally when the 1st respondent/complainant filed a private complaint, it was referred to the police for investigation under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C; and it is stated that the police investigated into the case and referred the same as false. Thereupon, the 1st respondent filed the present complaint before the lower Court against A-1 and A-2 alleging the above offences and it was taken on file by the lower Court. 2) A-1 is Chairman and A-2 is Manager of Maharaja Co- operative Urban Bank Limited, Visakhapatnam. A-1 is stated to be related to the complainant. It is further stated that A-1 and A- 2 are also inter-related. Trouble arose when the General Manager of the Bank addressed letter to the complainant demanding Rs.8,23,077.42 Ps as outstanding amount from him on over draft limit on Account No.5026 standing in the name of the complainant. Thereupon there was exchange of letters between the parties. Finally the complainant sent demand draft for Rs.150/- towards cost of sending copies of documents to the bank and sought for copies of share application to enrol membership, application for sanction of over draft loan account under dispute, commercial tax registration certificate, articles of hypothecation, insurance policy if any, details of immovable property offered or surety offered, bond executed in favour of the bank, copies of cheques and challans transacted with the bank and simple mortgage or equitable mortgage. Thereupon, A-2 addressed a letter to the complainant on 15.05.2002 stating that the complainant is not liable to pay the amount under over draft account No.5026 and that there will be no liability for the complainant to pay any amount to the bank and that previous notices dated 11.10.2001 and 20.11.2001 were erroneously received by the complainant as they were intended to the account holder of O.D.No.5026 with the same name as that of the complainant. In the same letter, it was further stated that the bank regrets very much for the previous notices. Therefore, the bank returned demand draft for Rs.150/- sent by the complainant to the complainant stating that the complainant is not entitled for copies of documents sought as he is a third party to O.D. Account No.5026. It is alleged in the complaint that the accused might have forged or got all the documents pertaining to the loan forged and the cheque facility was given to the account holder No.5026 and that the accused might have forged or got forged the application for opening of account, application for supply of cheque book, application for grant of O.D facility and all the signatures corresponding to the account and on all the vouchers, cheques and wrongfully gained by using the false account with O.D facility. From the said allegations, it is not the complainant’s case definitely that the accused have forged the above described documents. It is suspicion of the complainant that the accused might have forged or might have got the documents forged. On mere suspicion, a complaint cannot be lodged against the petitioners. 3) As pointed out earlier, the bank expressed its regrets unequivocally for sending two demand letters to the complainant and categorically stated that the said letters were addressed as the account stands in the name of a person with the same name as that of the complainant. Therefore, it cannot be said that the signatures of the complainant were forged for opening the said account and for withdrawing amounts through the said account. Assuming for the sake of argument that a false account with No.5026 was opened in the name of the complainant himself, there is no allegation that it was opened by A-1 and A-2 who are Chairman and Manager of the Bank. In the absence of any documents before Court containing the alleged forged signatures of the complainant and in the absence of Prima facie proof that the alleged forgeries were committed by A-1 or A-2, the complainant cannot maintain the complaint on mere suspicion. Suspicion cannot take place of proof. It is evident that by filing the complaint, the complainant intended to fish out evidence and material through the complaint. In my opinion, a complaint of this nature is nothing short of abuse of process of law and the accused cannot be asked to undergo the rigmarole of criminal trial in a case of this nature. 4) In that view of the matter on facts, Ram Prakash Singh V. State of Bihar[1] of the Supreme Court and the State of Maharashtra V. Abid Husen Sahib Husen[2] of the Bombay High Court have no application to this case. 5) In the result, the Criminal Petition is allowed quashing proceedings in C.C. No.2883 of 2008 on the file of I Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Visakhapatnam. _______________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU, J March 04, 2011 ksh [1] AIR 1998 SUPEME COURT 296 [2] 1978 CrlLJ 429