THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.S.NARAYANA Criminal Petition No.6703 of 2007 17th March, 2010 Between :- Bhikam Chand Jai & another .. Petitioners-accused And The State of A.P. Rep.by P.P., High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad & another .. Respondents THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.S.NARAYANA Criminal Petition No.6703 of 2007 ORDER:- Heard the Counsel. 2. Sri P.Prabhakar Reddy, the learned Counsel representing the petitioners would submit that this is a case concerned with recovery of amount and in fact, the defacto-complainant also filed a suit O.S.No.550/2004 on the file of the III-Addl. Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Secunderabad, and obtained a Decree and the amount also had been paid. 3. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor however had taken this Court through the contents of the charge-sheet and would maintain that merely because the amount had been realized, that by itself cannot be a ground to quash the proceedings. 4. The petitioners are accused in C.C.No.998/2004 on the file of XI Metropolitan Magistrate, Secunderabad. The police filed charge-sheet under Sections 420, 341, 384, 388 and 506 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioners. The 2nd respondent filed private complaint against the petitioners and the same was referred to police under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. and basing on such complaint, police investigated and filed charge-sheet. 5. The case of the prosecution is that the 1st petitioner is doing business in minerals under the name and style of M/s.Mangalam Minerals having office at Abids. The petitioner No.2 is the son of petitioner No.1 who is doing business in Mobile Phones. It is stated that the defacto-complainant is having Transport Company having office at Feelkhana at Hyderabad. It is stated that the first petitioner gets material from various parts of Rajasthan through various transport companies. The freight charges have to be paid by the accused at the destination at Hyderabad at the time of taking material from the transport companies. It is alleged that the first petitioner sought the assistance of the defacto-complainant in making payment at the time of taking delivery of goods from the transport companies. It is further alleged that the defacto-complainant made payments to the transport companies with an understanding that the accused shall repay the same within a week. It is also alleged that at the instance of the first petitioner – A.1 the complainant made several payments from time to time and the total amount due is Rs.1,32,624/-. It is also alleged that the said transactions were entered into on the basis of mutual understanding. The defacto-complainant has been persuading the first petitioner – A.1 to make the said payment since long time but he is evading payment. As the first accused shifted his office and when he is not paying the amount, the defacto-complainant attempted to recover the said dues from the second petitioner – A.2 but he had also not paid the amount. Having vexed with their attitude the defacto-complainant filed the complaint for the non-payment of the said amount. It is also alleged that the petitioners threatened the defacto-complainant when he approached them for payment of the amount. It is also alleged that the petitioners threatened the defacto-complainant when he approached them for payment of the amount. 6. Further it is stated that the allegations mentioned in the charge- sheet do not disclose an offence under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code. As per the allegations made in the charge-sheet the first petitioner was due to pay some amounts to the defacto-complainant and as the amounts were not paid the complaint was filed. The allegations mentioned in the charge-sheet are in civil nature and no of was made out against the petitioners. Even as per the charge-sheet nothing was alleged against the second petitioner who is the son of the first petitioner. The allegations in the charge-sheet are that the defacto-complainant paid the amount in respect of freight charges to different transport companies on various dates for release of stock on the request of the first accused. It is also stated that there is no written papers with regard to the request made by the first accused. The defacto-complainant had not placed any record to show that the first accused did business in minerals. The charge-sheet contents are vague and no offence was made out against the petitioners. The provisions of Section 384, 341 and 506 of I.P.C. were not made out as there was no extortion of any properties or the defacto-complainant were confined and threatened with dire consequences. The petitioners submit that there was no dishonest intention to cheat the defacto-complainant from the very beginning of the transaction. Mere failure to keep the promise at the subsequent stage, offence of cheating cannot be made out. In view of the above, continuation of proceedings against the petitioners is harassment to them and also an abuse of process of Court. 7. As can be seen from the allegations being vexed with the attitude of the petitioner in not paying the amount, this complaint had been thought of. Even otherwise it is brought to the notice of the Court that a civil suit in fact had been filed and the amount also had been recovered. Even otherwise, predominantly this dispute is one of civil nature, no purpose would be served in further proceeding with the prosecution. 8. In view of the same, the proceedings are quashed and the Criminal Petition is allowed. _____________________ Justice P.S.Narayana 17th March, 2010 smr