1. This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking to quash the proceedings against the petitioner in C.C.No.73 of 2008 on the file of the Court of the Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Gudivada, Krishna District.

2. Sri Y.Ramarao, the learned counsel for the petitioner, would submit that the trail Court committed grave error while taking cognizance of the offences against the petitioner under Sections 385 and 427 of IPC. He further submitted that even if the allegations made in the complaint are taken at their face value true and correct, the same would not constitute any offence much less the offences alleged to have been committed by the petitioner. He further submitted that if the criminal proceedings are allowed to be continued, the same would amount to miscarriage of justice as well as abuse of process of law.

3. Controverting the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Syed Ghouse Basha the learned counsel for the first respondent, would submit that the allegations made in the complaint prima facie constitute the offences committed by the petitioner. He further submitted that the Court has to evaluate the material available on record to ascertain whether there is any prima facie case or not against the accused, but should not consider whether there is any ground for conviction. He further submitted that there are no grounds much less valid grounds to quash the proceedings against the petitioner by exercising inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

4. The factual back ground in which this Criminal Petition arises may be summarized as under:

5. The first respondent filed a private complaint under Sections 190 and 200 Cr.P.C. on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Gudivada, Krishna district against the petitioner for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 379, 468, 385 and 506 of IPC alleging that on 12.09.2005 he visited his brother’s house at Pamarru. After settlement of the financial transaction, he has taken back 20 blank promissory notes, blank cheques bearing Nos.118551 to 118575 drawn on Urban Bank, Gudivada branch, blank cheque beraring Nos.689030 to 689050 drawn on Gandhi Nagar branch, Vijayada and two non-judicial stamp papers worth of Rs.100/- each duly signed by him (first respondent) from his brother. On the even date i.e. 12.09.2005 while the first respondent getting into the bus at Pamarru bus stand to go to Gudivada, the polythene bag in which the above referred cheque books, promissory notes and non-judicial stamp papers were kept, was misplaced. Immediately the first respondent rushed to Pamarru Police Station and informed the same. Subsequently, the Station House Officer, Pamarru Police Station, issued a non-tracing certificate on 15.09.2015. On 24.09.2015 the first respondent issued a paper publication in Vaartha daily newspaper about the missing of the above mentioned documents.

6. While the things stood thus, on 20.01.2016, the petitioner got issued a legal notice to the first respondent as if he (first respondent) executed a promissory note in favour of the petitioner on 12.12.2004 for an amount of Rs.2.00 lakhs agreeing to repay the same with interest @ 24 % p.a. and also issued a cheque bearing No.0118551 for Rs.2,52,000/-. The first respondent got issued a reply notice stating that he lost the polythene bag on 12.09.2005 at Pamarru bus stand and directed the petitioner to handover the same. The petitioner demanded huge amount from the first respondent for return of the above said documents.

7. The petitioner filed C.C.No.693 of 2006 on the file of the I Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Vijayawada as if the first respondent has committed the offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, taking advantage of custody of the signed cheque bearing No.0118551. The petitioner also filed O.S.No.229 of 2006 on the file of IV Additional Senior Civil Judge, Vijayawada against the first respondent for recovery of suit amou