JUDGMENT: Heard Shri Mahajan, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Laddhad, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent No. J. 2. Rule is made returnable forthwith and heard finally with the consent of the parties. 3. Respondent Nos. 1 & 2 are absent and their advocate is also absent. 4. The petitioner has filed a Criminal Complaint in the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Gondia, Court No.5, vide Criminal Complaint Case No. 441 of 2009. Respondent No. 1 is a relative of the petitioner. Respondent No.2 was working as a Branch Manager of Gondia District Central Cooperative Bank, Goregoan. It is alleged in the complaint that Respondent No. 1 in collusion with Respondent No.2 took some signatures of the petitioner on blank forms and obtained loan from the Bank. However, the amount, in fact, was delivered to Respondent No.1. During the course of arguments, it was submitted that the petitioner had agreed to give Rs. One lakh to Respondent No. 1 after obtaining loan from the Bank. However, after making certain manipulations in the document, the loan amount was increased to Rs.2,15,000/- and whole amount was taken away by Respondent No. 1 with the assistance of Respondent No.2. 5. The learned Magistrate, after recording the statement of the complainant, has sent the complaint for inquiry and report under Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The police submitted the report that the petitioner had voluntarily given loan amount to Respondent No. 1 and. therefore, the amount was handed over to Respondent No.1. Respondent No. 1 was unable to pay the amount and, therefore, he had issued a cheque of Rs.2,50,000/- to the petitioner. The said cheque was not honored by the bankers of Respondent No. 1. 6. The learned counsel submitted that the amount actually agreed to be paid to Respondent No. 1 was Rs. One lakh and that the manipulation was done by Respondent Nos. l & 2 to withdraw the amount of Rs.2,15,000/-. 7. This does not appear to be correct from the police inquiry and report. It is noted that the petitioner is a School Teacher and is not a illiterate person. It is also noted that the petitioner did not take any steps to file a Criminal Complaint against Respondent No.1 under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act when the cheque issued by Respondent was dishonoured. It is noted that the petitioner is a School Teacher and is not a illiterate person. It is also noted that the petitioner did not take any steps to file a Criminal Complaint against Respondent No.1 under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act when the cheque issued by Respondent was dishonoured. It, therefore, appears to me that the petitioner has adopted the criminal proceedings against Respondent Nos. 1 & 2 to recover the money. 8. In my opinion, considering the facts of the case, dispute between the petitioner and Respondent Nos. 1 & 2 is purely of civil nature and this complaint appears to be manipulated complaint. The Complaint has been rightly dismissed by the trial Court and Revision has also been rightly rejected by the Revisional Court. Therefore, I do not find any substance in the petition. The present Criminal Writ Petition stands dismissed. Rule stands discharged. Petition dismissed.