THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY Criminal Petition No.2245 of 2010 9th November, 2011 Between :- Gandham Naga Babu .. Petitioner And The State Station House Officer, Inkuduru P.S., Rep.by the Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad and another .. Respondents THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY Criminal Petition No.2245 of 2010 ORDER:- This Criminal Petition has been taken out under Section 482 Cr.P.C. by the accused in Crime No.21 of 2010 on the file of Station House Officer, Inaguduru P.S., Krishna District, to quash the proceeding therein. The 2nd respondent herein presented a complaint before the II- Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Machilipatnam, on 29-12- 2009, alleging inter alia he along with his friend who is the petitioner herein went to Jangala Gold and Silver Show Room on 17-7-2008 and ordered for a gold ornament (Glass cutting batla chain) and paid advance of Rs.29,000/-. The ornament was to be delivered after few days. The petitioner herein secured a Photostat copy of the receipt issued by the gold shop owner by name Jangala Anil Kumar and presented the Photostat copy of receipt to him representing that he is the friend of the complainant and he has been authorized to receive the gold ornament on production of the Photostat copy of the receipt as the original has been lost. By the said representation, the petitioner received the gold ornament from the gold shop. The complainant came to know of the fraud played by the petitioner and presented a report before the police. There being no action on the part of the police, he presented the complaint before the II-Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Machilipatnam, on 29-12-2009. The said complaint came to be forwarded to the Station House Officer, Inaguduru P.S., under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. Thereupon the Station House Officer registered a case in Crime No.21 of 2010 under Sections 420, 403 and 506 of I.P.C. and issued F.I.R. Hence, this petition by the accused. Notice to the respondents came to be ordered on 10-3-2010. The petitioner was permitted to take out notice to R.2 by RPAD and file proof of service. Accordingly, the petitioner took out notice to R.2 and filed memo of proof service. As per the memo, the 2nd respondent refused to take notice. Heard learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the 1st respondent – State. Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the 2nd respondent has not even furnished the original receipt along with the complaint to substantiate his contention that he placed an order for gold ornament and that the petitioner received the gold ornament by producing Photostat copy of the same and therefore continuation of criminal proceedings basing on the complaint amounts to abuse of process of law. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the 1st respondent – State opposed the petition. As seen from the complaint presented by the 2nd respondent, no original receipt has been enclosed thereto. The petitioner allegedly received the gold ornament on 17-8-2008 basing on the Photostat copy of the Order Form. The 2nd respondent presented the complaint before the II-Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Machilipatnam on 29-12-2009. In the absence of original receipt, it cannot be said that the 2nd respondent placed an Order Form for preparing the gold ornament. In the given facts and circumstances, continuation of criminal proceedings against the petitioner basing on the complaint of the 2nd respondent amounts to abuse of process of law. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed quashing the First Information Report in Crime No.21 of 2010 on the file of the Station House Officer, Inaguduru P.S., Krishna District. ________________________ B.Seshasayana Reddy, J 9th November, 2011 smr