JUDGEMENT 1. The sole petitioner, the only person out of the eight persons arraigned as accused in Complaint Case No. 294(C) of 2006, against whom cognizance has been taken therein under Sections 323, 422 and 504 IPC by order dated 17.3.2007 passed by the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Barh, has through this application prayed for the quashing of the same. 2. One Syed Badi Asghar, the complainant, impleaded herein as O.P. No.2, filed the aforesaid complaint against eight persons including the petitioner, his cousin (mamera bhai), and living in the same mohalla, on 1.8.2006 inter alia alleging the commission of offences under Sections 323, 341, 379, 406, 420, 504 and 120-B IPC at the hands of the named accused persons, it was alleged that the petitioner, for the treatment of his wife, had taken loans of Rs. 4000/- and Rs. 3000/- respectively on 13.2.1999 and 14.12.1999 and had promised to return the same. Again on 26.2.1999 another loan of Rs. 5000/- was taken and on 8.11.1999 Ashfaque Ahsan, the son of the petitioner, in the name of his father took yet another loan of Rs. 20,000/- from the complainant, in token of receiving the loans the petitioner as also his son had made endorsements/entries in the diary of the complainant. Lastly on 24.1.2000, Nazam Ahsan, another son of the petitioner, took loan of Rs. 10,000/- from the complainant and gave in return a receipt therefor. 3. It is alleged that on 28.6.2006 at about 8 A.M. when the complainant went to the house of the accused persons with a request to return the money, all the cused persons, were taking tea and out of them Amin Ahmad interfered whereupon the complainant asked him to shut his mouth, Angered thereby the accused persons started abusing the complainant and the petitioner and Amin asked the other accused persons to throw him out of the house. 4. It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioners that the entire prosecution story is false, fabricated, fictitious and concocted and an innocent person having committed no offence was unnecessarily being dragged into vexatious litigations. While denying the allegation of non-payment of loan money given as far back as January, 1999, the rationality and reasonability of such dues standing over for 7 years without any action being taken thereupon, according to the learned counsel for the petitioner, makes the entire accusations unbelievable and untrustworthy. While denying the allegation of non-payment of loan money given as far back as January, 1999, the rationality and reasonability of such dues standing over for 7 years without any action being taken thereupon, according to the learned counsel for the petitioner, makes the entire accusations unbelievable and untrustworthy. In this connection it was submitted that, in fact, the son of the petitioner had filed a Complaint Case No. 97(C) of 2008 against the complainant and other persons who figured as prosecution witnesses in the instant complaint case. It is said that the complainant and his witnesses are real estate agents and jointly are involved in occupation, sale and purchase of lands and in course thereof they had by creating a forged document, sold the land of Khata No. 188, Khesra No. 438 of Syed Imtiaz Ahshan, the son of the petitioner. It Is further submitted that the falsity of the statement of the P.Ws. are manifestly evident from the fact that in the complaint petition itself it is stated that neither any alleged loan was given in the presence of the said witnesses nor on the date of alleged occurrence (28.7.2006) any one had accompanied the complainant and hence the entire statement of the P.Ws. are nothing but a bundle of lies and no reliance can be placed on the same. As an after math it has been submitted that the petitioner is a practicing advocate at Barn and besides his professional income he is financially sound having a monthly income of more than Rs. 25,000/- from rent from National Building Construction Ltd. who were his tenants. 5. From a perusal of the complaint it is apparent that there is a delay of 6 years in filing the complaint. Moreover it is not asserted that at the time of taking money as loan the intention of the petitioner was to cheat him and on a false promise money was taken. It is a clear case of money transaction which can be decided only in a civil suit. The witnesses examined on behalf of the complainant during the inquiry have not fully supported the fact of the loan being advanced in their presence nor any of the witnesses are witness to the alleged occurrence of abuse and assault of 28.7.2006. 6. It is a clear case of money transaction which can be decided only in a civil suit. The witnesses examined on behalf of the complainant during the inquiry have not fully supported the fact of the loan being advanced in their presence nor any of the witnesses are witness to the alleged occurrence of abuse and assault of 28.7.2006. 6. in view of the facts stated above and in the circumstances of the case the taking of cognizance appears to be an abuse of the process of the Court and is accordingly quashed and the application is allowed. However, the complainant will be at liberty to seek other remedy available to him.