The High Court · 2025

Petition under section 482 of cr.P .c praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of criminal Petition, the High court may be pleased to quash the proceedings in cc No, 10 of 2021, on the file of I Additional bpecial Judge for CBI Cases, Nampally Hyderabad, against the Petitioner/Accused No. 1 . A. NO: 2 OF 2022 t. Petition under section 482 of cr.P.c praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of criminal Petition, the High court may be pleased to grant stay of all further proceedings in cc No. 10 of 2021, on the file of i eOaltionri- Special Judge For CBI Cases, Nampally, Hyderabad including the appearance olthe Accused No.1, till the disposal of the Main Quash Petition in the interest of the iustice. CRIMINAL PETI TION NO i 1348 0F 2022 Between: Battu Rama Rao, Emolovee of lDBl 8-31835 and 836, Y S/o. Battu Masthan Rao, aged about 58 yeaIs, Occ' .Ex' Ban k, Basheerbagh Branch, R/o. Flat no. 40t' RaJ Mansron, ellareddyguda, HYderabad. ... Petitione r/Ac c used No.1 AND 1 ThestateofTelangana,Rep.byitsSpl.PublicProsecutor(Ct}l)HighCourt at Hyderabad. 2 iB?lljE,.,xtiIfilr,:j:#3i[,:"t:o33l"l?lJ",iB,YiJ"1hx'"::fi,r"?gi,"lJl'""0' 500001 ...ResPondents petition under section 482 o',l cr.P .c praying that in the circumstances stateO lriine rraemorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pi"rr"i t" qrrsh the proceedings in cc No. 12 of 2021 ,on the fite: of I Additronal Soecial Judge For uBl bases, Nampally' Hyderabad' against the Petitioner/Accused No 1 l.A. NO: 2 O 2022 F petition under Section 482 of cr.P .c praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pt",,"dtograntstayofallfurtherproceedingsinCCNo.l2of202l,onthefileof inooi,ionui speciat Judge For CBt Cases, Nampally, Hyderabad including the appearance of the Petitioner/ Accused No.1 , till the disposal of the ()uash Petition ThesePetitionscomingonforhearing'uponperusingthelvlemorandumof Grounds of criminal Petitions and upon hearing the arguments of Sri V Roopesh KumarReddy,AdvocateforthePetitionersinbothCRLPsandSriSrinivas Kapatia'specia|PublicProsecutoronbehalfoftheRespondentNo'linboth CRLPSandofSriKVRajasree,AdvocatefortheRespondentNo.2inboth CRLPS. The Court made the following: COMMON ORDER & I I -l HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE JUWADISRIDEVI ' NAL P ETITIO NNos.851 and 1 348 o t2022 / CRIMI coM MON O RDER: These Criminal Petitions are filed under Section 482 oI Cr.P.C by the petitioner/accused No 1 seeking to quash the proceedings in CC Nos'10 and 12 of 2021 on the flle of I Additional Special Judge for CBI Cases' Nampally' Hyderabad against the Petitioner'

2. Heard Mr'V Roopesh Kumar Reddy' learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Srinivas Kapatia' learned Special Public Prosecutor for CBI for respondent No 1 and lvls'K V'Raiasree' learned counsel for respondent No 2 and perused the record'

3. Brief facts of the case are that the defacto complainant filed a written complaint before the police alleging that the petitioner/accused No 1 while working as Deputy General Manager in lDBl Bank' Hyderabad during the period 2009-2011' misappropriated pisciculture loan amounts to a tune of Rs 192 98 crores by 22 Aggregator groups consisting of 220 Botrowers in collusion with Bank officials and Bank panel valuers by pledging fakedocumentsandovervaluingthecollateralproperties.The said loans were sanctioned at Basheerbagh' Habsiguda' fI \l .."-l \l Hyderabad and other branches, during the financia years 2009- 2010,2010-2011,2011-2012 and the total outstandrng loans are to a tune of Rs 445.32 crores. The mentioned surver,,numbers do not have fish cultivations and thus, the sanctioned advances were misappropriated for the purposes other than for which the roans were sanctioned and the said amounts were transferrred to their individual accounts and later withdrawn and used for personal purposes. Basing on the said complaint, police registr:red a crime in RC No. 06(Ay201B dated 22.03.2018 of CBt, Hyderabad for the offences under sections l3(2) read with 13(i ) (c;) & (d) and Section 12A-B read with 420, 4Og, 467, 468, 471 After completion of investigation, Central Bureau of lnvestigation has filed charge sheet before I Additional Special Judge for CBI cases, Nampally, Hyderabad.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits; that the petitioner was falsely implicated in the present case The audit personnel who verified the audit of loans have nol raised any objections during the time of audit and with regard to processing and disbursement of the loans. lMoreover, the petitioner is only Deputy General Manager and cluster head and his authority was only to approve the roan. rt is further submitted that as per Delegation of powers of the Bank, the sanction of as:;istance is ..,.,,k ] .,: ,- 3 Rs.100 Lakhs. Therefore, the petitioner does not act beyond his delegated powers and this act would not constitute any kind of criminal misconduct. Further the petitioner is not having any acquaintance with the borrowers t.e. other accused and moreover, there is no material or evidence placed by the investigating agency to prove the guilt of the petitioner in respect of conspiracy with other accused at the time of sanctioning the loan. Further the defacto complainant without any prior permission from chairman incruding Board of Director fired the present complaint on behalf of his Bank, which is not maintainable in the eye of law.

5. On the other hand, learned Assistant public prosecutor submits that there are specific ailegations against the petitioner ) ) herein. Hence prays to dismiss the criminal petition.

6. Learned counsel for the respondent No.2 submits that summons have been issued by the trial Court and the case is coming up for examination of witnesses and the trial has been commenced. Therefore, at this stage no interference of this Court is required and prayed to dismiss the criminal petitions.

7. ln view of the submissions made by the learned counsel for the respondent No.2 and as the petitioner is alleged with serious 4 :!! allegations and the trial has been commenced before the trial Court. as the issues are triable issues, this Court is r:f the view that this case is not a fit case for quashment and no irrterference is required at this stage

8. ln the said circumstances, this Court is of the considered view thal there are no grounds to interfere and the criminal petitions are liable to be dismissed

9. Accordingly, this Criminal Petitions are dismissec Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed /TTRUE COPY'/ '"J;';r'#iE8lL?A"^H \ I SECTION OFFICER To,

1. 2. J, 4 5 b Hyderabad The l Additional Special Judge for CBI Case-s. |?Tpj]., rhe station House offrcer' A';'lA&;"li;; station' Hvderrabad Two CCs to the Public "rol7'Giir''g; Bynl%t ?i {? V-Joopesh Ku mar Reddv-' Advocate [o P U'3 ] One CC to Sri K V Ralasree' Advocate [OPUC] Two CD CoPies Court for 16s $t rte of Telangana at (A- ADK/gh \ I \ HlGH COURT DATED:1310312025 COMMON ORDER CRLP.Nos.851 AND 1348 of 2022 k )R' l-lE Sr4 14: 2lJUl'l M e J c o ,f '+ .\<_-j - 1'1rt--t' -'--;5" DISMISSING THE BOTH CRLPs .)- I (n( o , ,\' z <t /, rf'