- (1.) THIS is a petition under Section 482, Cr. P. C. for quashing the proceedings in Criminal Case No. 2683 of 1990 under Sections 406/420, I. P. C. pending in the Court of 1st Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sitapur.
(2.) NAWAB Khan opposite party No. 1 has filed a complaint under Sections 406/420,1. P. C. against Munna petitioner. Copy of the complaint is Annexure 3 to this petition. It is alleged that on 17-9-1990 the petitioner came to the house of opposite party No. 1 and said that he was in need of money for running his hotel business. The petitioner on the basis of the said representation, took a loan of Rs. 5,000/- from opposite party No. 1. However, the petitioner failed to repay the loan, and it is further alleged, misappropriat ed the sum of Rs. 5. 000/- advanced to him. The statement of opposite party No. 1 was recorded under Section 200, and the statements of Lalta Singh and Tain were recorded under Section 202, Cr. P. C. The petitioner was thereafter summoned by the learned Magistrate under Sections 406/420, l. P. C. Counter-affidavit has been filed on behaf of opposite party No. I and the rejoinder affidavit has also been filed by the petitioner. The allega tions made in the complaint do not constitute an offence under Sections 406/ 423 I. P. C. , even if the allegations are taken to be correct. The only allegation of opposite party No. 1 is that the petitioner has failed to repay the sum of Rs. 5000/- which is said to have been advanced by opposite party No. 1 as a loan to him. The loan alleged to have been advanced to the petitioner cannot amount to entrustment and the failure to repay the loan cannot be tantamount to dishonest misappropriation within the meaning to Sections 405 and 406, I. P. C. No offence of cheating has also been made out since the only allegation against the petitioner is that he made a wrongful representation with regard to the object for which he was taking the loan. There is nothing to show that the opposite party No. 1 was fraudulently or dishonestly induced by the alleged misappropriation of the petitioner for advancing the loan to him. Thus, the dispute between the parties is essentially of civil nature inasmuch as the claim of opposite party No. 1 is for repayment of the loan alleged to have been given by him to the petitioner and so it will bean abuse of the process of the Court to let the prosecution of the petitioner on the basis of the complaint instituted by opposite party No. 1 to continue. The petition under Section 482, Cr. P. C. is allowed and the proceed ings for the prosecution of the petitioner in the above mentioned criminal case are hereby quashed. Petition allowed. .;