Heard Mr. BP Kataky assisted by Mr. BN Sarma and Mr. TJ Mahanta, learned counsel for the revisionists. 2. Despite of receipt of repeated notices issued by this Court, none appears on behalf of the respondent. However, considering the nature of the case involved in this revision petition, I proposed to dispose of this petition on merit. 3. This application has been filed under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure with a prayer for quashing of Complaint Case No .26/99 tinder section 409/418/420/427 IPC now pending before the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Dimapur for disposal. 4. Facts may be briefly stated. Complainant took a loan of Rs. 7,5 0,000 from the Dimapur Branch of Indian Bank (plaintiffs). Complainant has defaulted in making payment of the loan amount along with the interest, a suit namely, Money Suit 5 of 1997 has bee® filed by the Indian Bank where the revisionists are the officers of the plaintiffs' Bank. The said money suit was filed on 21st January 1997. In the meantime, the said suit was transferred to Guwahati before the Debt Recovery Tribunal with the emergence of the Act and renumbered as OA No. 124 of 1998 and the same is pending for disposal. Thereafter, the respondent/ defendant filed a complaint on 20.7.99 alleging that the amount of Rs. 6,60,000 has been paid on different dates commencing from 16.5.94 to 20.6.94. It is alleged by the complainant that the aforesaid amount has been paid to the revisionists, however, on request, the revisionists has refused to issue the Bank receipt to the complainant. The aforesaid allegation would clearly show that the contents of the complainant is in. the nature of relatory to the filing of money suit, just to harass the revisionists. Even if assuming that such allegation has some substance, the same subject matter being pending before the Debt Recovery Tribunal the complainant could have taken up this point which is the subject matter pending before the Debt Recovery Tribunal instead of filing criminal complaint. That the complaint is vexatious would clearly appear from the contents of allegation made in paragraph 10 of the complaint that the complainant started making deposit commencing from 20.5.94 upto 20.6.94 amounting to Rs. 6,60,000 but which was allegedly not deposited in his account and for which a complaint was filed only on 20.7.99 after Money Suit No. 5 of 1997 has been filed. 6,60,000 but which was allegedly not deposited in his account and for which a complaint was filed only on 20.7.99 after Money Suit No. 5 of 1997 has been filed. 5. Prima facie therefore, the complaint filed by the complainant/defendant on 20.7.99 clearly intended to circumvent the Money Suit No. 5 of 1997 now re­numbered as OA No. 124 of 1998 pending before the Debt Recovery Tribunal for disposal. The complaint is in the nature of retaliatory to the money suit and it is vexatious to harass the officers of the plaintiffs' Bank and the said proceeding is liable to be quashed and set aside. 6. In the result, the Complaint Case No. 26/99 under section 409/418/420/427 IPC now pending before the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Dimapur is hereby quashed and set aside. Any subsequent order passed by the learned Court below also stand quashed. This revision petition is allowed and disposed of