LAWS(APH)-2010-8-145

N ANAND RAJU Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

Decided On August 05, 2010
N. ANAND RAJU Appellant
V/S
STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is accused of offences punishable under Sections 406 and 420 IPC in CC No.466 of 2008 on the file of XVII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad. Transactions between the petitioner and the 2nd respondent/de facto-complainant are relating to loans said to have been obtained by the accused from the de facto-complainant under pronotes. It is alleged that towards discharge of the debt, the accused gave six cheques to the de facto-complainant. Out of those six cheques, the de facto complainant presented two of them for encashment and they were dishonoured. THErefore, he filed CC Nos.362 of 2008 and 365 of 2008 on the file of XVIII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad. Both the said C.Cs were dismissed by that Court under Section 256 Cr.PC and the accused/petitioner was acquitted in those two cases on 30.9.2009. It is stated by the petitioner's Counsel that the said cases were not restored by any appellate or revisional Courts.

(2.) THE de feacto-complainant presented four other cheques also for encashment and they were dishonoured for want of sufficient funds. But in spite of it, the de facto-complainant did not file any cases against the petitioner under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. He had chosen to present a private complaint alleging offences under Sections 406 and 420 IPC against the petitioner. It is alleged that utilising innocence of the de facto-complainant and by mesmerising his psychological disorder, the accused took cash of Rs.1,50,000/- from the de facto-complainant and failed to repay the same within two months as promised. THE allegations taken on their face value do not disclose statutory facts relating to offences punishable under Sections 406 and 420 IPC. A simple loan transaction between the parties cannot give rise to cause of action for filing a criminal case, unless it is one under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. This Court finds that the dispute between the parties is one which is purely of civil in nature.