1 APPLN 4607.09.sxw JPP IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE SIDE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 4607 OF 2009 Mr. Parasmal Goverdhanmal Sethia & Ors. ... Applicants. V/s. Lunkaran Lichmandas Maloo & Anr. ... Respondents. Mr. Jagdish Nagar for the Applicants. Mr. Rajesh More, APP for the State. CORAM : K.U. CHANDIWAL, J. DATED : 19th SEPTEMBER 2011. P.C. :- Heard learned Counsel for the Accused/Applicant. The Respondent (Original Complainant – Lunkaran) served. However, no participation. 2. The Respondent came with a case of advancing Rs. 25,00,000/- to Petitioner No.1 (Rs.18,00,000/- and at his instance to other Accused by way of cheques totaling Rs. 25,00,000/-). In the report to the Police dated 29.1.2003, Respondent Lunkaran informed, in discharge of the liability, Petitioner Parasmal Sethia gave a cheque of Rs.9,36,000/- which was bounced. Another cheque of Rs.9,50,000/- was also handed over by the Petitioner, which is still with the Complainant (Lunkaran). The amount is not paid on the other 2 APPLN 4607.09.sxw hand it is alleged, the Petitioner – Accused threatened to the said Complainant if amount is demanded, the Respondent Lunkaran shall face consequences. 3. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, by order dated 26th April 2007 against non-issuance of process, entertained the Revision Application No.1256 of 2006 and directed to issue process against the Accused (Petitioner) under Sections 406,420 r/w. 34 of IPC and proceed with the trial. 4. Reading the Complaint Petition and the annexures, I find that the controversy between the Petitioner as the Accused and Respondent Lunkaran as the Complainant, revolves to a civil transaction. The threat perception that has been extended could not be a cause to entertain a complaint as has been done as it was a non-cognizable offence. That apart, in the inquiry that the Police recorded, it also found that the transaction between the parties revolves to a civil liabilities. Taking these aspects into consideration, the directions of issuance of process by the learned Additional Sessions Judge dated 26.4.2007 is illegal and contrary to the record including the legal principles. 5. The orders of issuance of process, followed by the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, pursuant to above directions are consequently, quashed and set aside. The Petition allowed. (K.U. CHANDIWAL,J.) 3 APPLN 4607.09.sxw