1 Cri.W.P. No.255/2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.255 OF 2010 1. Yashwant s/o Lalji Gadge, Age 35 years, Occ. Agri./Social work, R/o Gandhi Chowk, Biloli, Tq. Biloli, District Nanded. 2. Arun s/o Lalji Gadge, Age 30 years, Occ. Service, R/o Gandhi Chowk, Biloli, Tq. Biloli, District Nanded ... PETITIONERS VERSUS 1. State of Maharashtra, through Police Inspector, Biloli Police Station, Biloli, District Nanded. 2. Digambar Vitthalrao Kulkarni, Age 45 years, Occ. Advocate R/o Gandhi Chowk, Biloli, Tq. Biloli, District Nanded. ... RESPONDENTS ..... Shri A.P. Bhandari, Advocate for the petitioners Shri K.M. Suryawanshi, A.P.P. for respondent No.1. ..... CORAM : K.U. CHANDIWAL, J. DATE : 24th January, 2011. ORAL JUDGMENT : 1. Heard. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, taken up for final hearing at admission stage. 2 Cri.W.P. No.255/2010 2. The complainant, an Advocate (respondent in the Writ Petition), even after service, is absent. 3. The complainant (respondent No.2 came with a case that the petitioner, in need of money to contest election, had agreed to sell his vehicle to respondent No.2 for Rs.75,000/-. However, since he needed the vehicle for election programme, he executed a promissory note on 6.1.2007 for having received Rs.75,000/- in presence of two witnesses as a hand loan. Reading the promissory note, it is explicit, it was a hand loan transaction, being witnessed by two persons. The respondent No.2 being an Advocate, when was able to get the promissory note, there was no inhibition for him to get regular agreement executed of sale of the vehicle or getting the same through R.T.O. This itself illustrate that the transaction was of a civil nature, a different colour is given, to cause pressure upon the petitioner to succumb to the unjust uncalled for demand. This Court, while entertaining pre-arrest bail application of the petitioner, observed in para 6 on 21.9.2007 that prima facie, dispute appears to be of a civil nature. Having gone through the order of the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, dated 18.1.2010, rejecting the discharge application moved below Exh. 27 in R.C.C. No.118/2007, I find, the learned Judge, though accepted the legal position, 3 Cri.W.P. No.255/2010 however, felt that there was an element of cheating on the part of the petitioners, and declined to discharge. The very recital of the promissory note would have categorically made the picture clear, if it is read exhaustively which has been lacking. Consequently, the order of issuance of process or thereafter not to entertain the discharge application (Exh. 27) calls for interference. The accusations under Sections 420, 406, 504, 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code could not be coined, taking the complaint as a whole from any angle even if the defence of the petitioner is not considered. Writ Petition allowed. The criminal prosecution against the petitioner is quashed and set aside. Rule made absolute. K.U. CHANDIWAL JUDGE