THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY CRIMINAL PETITION No. 1037 OF 2006 Date: 15-07-2010 Between Smt. Meka Subhashini …..Petitioner And P. Aruna and two others …..Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY CRIMINAL PETITION No. 1037 OF 2006 ORDER: This petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C to quash the order in Criminal Revision Petition No. 242 of 2005 dated 12-01-2006 on the file of the learned Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad whereby the revision filed by the petitioner herein questioning the order of the learned XIV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad in S.R No. 8963 of 2005 dated 19-09-2005 has been dismissed. The petitioner herein filed a complaint against respondent Nos.1 and 2 for the offences under Sections 120-B and 420 read with Section 34 IPC alleging that she is an employee in Nizams Institute of Medical Sciences and that after the death of her father, she received certain amount towards her share in July 2002 and that on 17-09-2002, the accused who are her family friends approached her stating that they were supposed to receive money from their native place and requested for a hand loan of Rs.1,00,000/- promising that they would pay the amount within six months. Believing their version, she paid the amount of Rs.1,00,000/- on 17-09-2002, but they did not pay the amount within six months. On repeated requests, A-1 has issued a cheque on 01-06-2003 for Rs.1,00,000/- and when the said cheque was presented it was bounced. Since the amount has not been paid, she filed the complaint for the offences under Sections 120-B and 420 read with Section 34 IPC. The learned Magistrate after recording the sworn statement was of the view that essential ingredients of dishonest intention at the time of receiving the amount has not been established. The sworn statements disclose that respondent Nos.1 and 2 are liable to be proceeded against under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 provided the complainant complies with the statutory requirement viz., issuing statutory notice as envisaged under Section 138 (b) of the Act within the prescribed period after receipt of intimation of dishonour of cheque calling upon them to pay cheque amount within 15 days from the date of receipt of the notice, but it seems she failed to comply with the same and, therefore, there was no prima facie material to proceed against respondent Nos. 1 and 2 for the alleged offence. Thus holding the learned Magistrate dismissed the S.R and the same has been confirmed in revision by the learned Sessions Judge. It is nowhere stated in the complaint that the accused deceived the complainant fraudulently or dishonestly, induced her to deliver any property to any person at the time when she paid the amount. Not honouring the commitment after obtaining the loan will not constitute an offence under Section 415 IPC to be proceeded against under Section 420 IPC. In view of the same, no infirmity is discernible in the order passed by the Court below. The criminal petition is accordingly dismissed. A. GOPAL REDDY, J 15-07-2010 ks