IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRAPRADESH AT HYDERABAD HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL PETITION No.3998 of 2009 DATE:13.08.2010 Between: Sk.Riyaz Ahmed …… Petitioner And: Kosuru Manjula Devi and another …..Respondents HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL PETITION No.3998 of 2009 ORDER : The petitioner/A-4 is accused of offences punishable under Sections 420 and 506 I.P.C in C.C. No.3 of 2009 on the file of Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Gudur, in which the 1st respondent is the defacto-complainant. It is alleged that A-1 to A-4 who are president, secretary and co-ordinators of a cultural organisation by name Sri Kalidasa Kala Niketan, Gudur borrowed Rs.2,00,000/- on 18.01.2003 from the 1st respondent for their urgent needs with a false promise to repay the same in about two days and that on 22nd and 23rd of December, 2007 there was blockade demanding return of the borrowed amount by the accused and that on 28.07.2008 news item was published by A- 1 in ‘Sayankalam’ news paper to the effect that the borrowed amount of Rs.2,00,000/- was repaid within 10 days of borrowing. A-1 to A-4 are stated to have passed a receipt in favour of the 1st respondent on 18.01.2003. The said receipt reads that A-1 to A-4 received the amount of Rs.2,00,000/- from the 1st respondent for purpose of expenditure towards Super Hungama Show conducted on 19.01.2003. It does not read that it was a case of borrowing of money muchless any promise or representation to repay the said amount within two days. It is alleged by the complainant that the accused had taken the amount by deceitful means making the complainant to believe that the said receipt is sufficient for the transaction and promising to repay the amount in two days. Even though the alleged promise was to repay the amount within two days, the 1st respondent did not take any legal steps to recover the said amount by civil process within the period of limitation. Though the alleged borrowing was on 18.01.2003, the private complaint was filed in the lower Court on 18.12.2008, nearly after six years of the same. It is evident that having possession of the receipt dated 18.01.2003, the 1st respondent wanted to settle personal scores with the accused and had resorted to this criminal case. Even the allegations relating to borrowing and non repayment are correct, those allegations would only lead to the conclusion that the case is one which is purely of civil nature. Further, this Court is satisfied that the 1st respondent has resorted to filing of the criminal case nearly six years after the alleged borrowing by way of abuse of process of law and abuse of process of the Court. 2) In the result, the petition is allowed quashing proceedings in C.C. No.3 of 2009 on the file of Additional Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Gudur, Sri Potti Sriramulu Nellore District in so far as the petitioner/A-4 is concerned. _______________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU, J August 13, 2010 KSH