THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY W.P.No.2163 of 2010 ORDER: The petitioner was elected as the General Secretary of HMT Sathahahana Nagar Welfare Association (for short ‘the Society’), in the year 2003, for a period of three years. O.P.No.414 of 2003 was filed by the 2nd respondent and 34 others in the Court of III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District, at L.B. Nagar, challenging the election. The O.P. was allowed by the trial Court through its judgment dated 16-08-2004, and the election of the petitioner was set aside. The 2nd respondent filed a petition under Section 200 Cr.P.C. before the Court of IX Metropolitan Magistrate, Ranga Reddy District, at Kukatpally, against the petitioner and two others, alleging that they committed crimes, punishable under Section 420 I.P.C. The allegation was that, when he functioned as General Secretary of the Society, the petitioner handled the finances and as against Rs.4,95,000/-, only Rs.2 lakhs was available in the form of fixed deposits. The trial Court referred the matter to the 1st respondent for investigation, and FIR No.889 of 2008 was registered. The same is challenged in this writ petition. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Government Pleader for Home, and learned counsel for the 2nd respondent. The only allegation made against the petitioner is that he did not account properly for the amount handled by him, when he functioned as the Secretary of the Society. Assuming that there is any truth in it, the Society, or the 2nd respondent have to approach the proper forum, for recovery of the amount. Further, the affairs of the Society are governed by the bye-laws, and any disputes that arise as between the members themselves, or the members and third parties, have to be resolved by having recourse to the relevant proceedings. The contents of the complaint, submitted by the 2nd respondent, against the petitioner, do not make out any criminal offence. Hence, the writ petition is allowed directing that F.I.R.No.889 of 2008 is set aside. It is left open to the 2nd respondent to institute proceedings in a Court of Law, either for recovery of the amount, or for other reliefs. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________________ L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J. Dt.15-02-2010. KO