1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD, APPELLATE SIDE, CRIMINAL JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.: 545 OF 2003 1. Kamarali S/o Tazmul Hussain, Age: 45 years, Occu.: Business, R/o Chaya Chun Mohalla, Jalalpur, Taluka and District Ambedkarnagar (U.P.). 2. Ladlesab s/o Tajmul Hussain, Age: 45 years, Occu.: Business, R/o Chaya Chun Mohalla, Jalalpur, Taluka and District Ahmbedkarnagar (U. P.). ... PETITIONERS [ORIG. ACCUSED] VERSUS The State of Maharashtra. Through: Superintendent of Police, Nanded, District: Nanded. ... RESPONDENTS/ [ORIG. COMPLAINANT] *** Mr. P. R. Patil, Advocate for the Applicants. Mr. K. M. Suryawanshi, A.P.P. for the Respondent/ State. *** ORAL JUDGMENT: 1. Heard learned counsel for the original accused. A prosecution was initiated by informant Hasanraja that he was carrying business of selling cloth at Nanded. He paid 2 an amount of Rs.10,000/- to the accused, who are engaged in selling handkerchief. The amount was allegedly paid on 13th October, 1999, however, the accused did not supply the handkerchief nor refunded the amount. When the informant insisted for refund of the amount, the accused denied to repay the same and asked the informant to take whatever recourse he likes. Consequently, a report was lodged with police at Vazirabad, Nanded. After investigation, charge sheet came to be filed before learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nanded [RCC 244 of 2000]. An application Exhibit-21 was moved by the accused before the learned C.J.M. Learned C.J.M. accepted the contention and dismissed the charge sheet. Consequently, same was subject of challenge in Criminal Revision No.124 of 2000 before the learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Nanded. The learned Judge, by his judgment dated 13th February, 2003 set aside the order of learned C.J.M. recorded below Exhibit-21 and Exhibit-1 and directed admitting RCC 244 of 2000 to the file of C.J.M. It is this order, subject of criticism by the accused in the present criminal application. 2. Reading the theory, as narrated by the complainant, it is more leaning to indicate that there was a contract to 3 supply handkerchiefs to the complainant for which Rs. 10,000/- was received. It cannot be remotely stated to be giving rise to offence punishable under section 504 or 506 of Indian Penal Code. The observation of the learned C.J.M. dated 27th June, 2000 more indicate to be possible view than the observation of the learned Sessions Judge in para 6 of the Revisional Court judgment. It is to be seen that there was no such intention of the accused since inception about duping or not supplying the goods or to embezzle the same. In facts of the case, indeed the payment of Rs.10,000/- could not have been positively established. 3. During the course of submission Mr. Patil invited my attention to a Hindi Plaint dated 17th June, 1998 at Vazirabad which displayed that there was a civil litigation between Kamarali, the accused herein, and Muntajib Hussain, the defendant No.1. Muntajib Hussain is father of the complainant. It is more clear that in order to squeeze the civil litigation and get a favourable result therein, a prosecution is tried to be initiated by putting criminal courts in force by application dated 15th October, 1999. The prosecution is apparently an abuse requiring interference in terms of section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code. 4 4. The guidelines as indicated in the matter of "State of Haryana and others V/s Ch. Bhajanlal and others" by Honourable Apex Court reported in AIR 1992 SC 604 are illustrative in nature. The present case fits in the parameters indicated in the judgment of the Apex Court. The prosecution being an oppression and humiliation to the accused/ applicant, same cannot be allowed to be further continued by exercise of powers under section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The proceedings are quashed and dismissed. The bail bond, if any executed by the accused, are cancelled. Rule made absolute in above terms. [K. U. CHANDIWAL, J.] Dated:28/08/2009. ans/545