The High Court · 2025

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE E.V. VENUCTOPAL - CRIMINAL PETITION No.1338 OF 2O2L, ORDER: The present Criminal Petition is frled under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. by the petitioner/accused No.2, seeking to quash the proceedings against him in Cr.No.177 of 2Ol9 on the file of Thirumalgiri Police Station, Suryapet District, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 42O, 465 rlw 34 of Indian Penal Code.

2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.E.Ganesh, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent- 1/ State. There is no representation on behalf of respondent No.2 despite service of notice. Perused the record.

3. The brief facts of the case are that 05.11.2019 at 16:00 hrs the complainant Jatoth Hemali Naik, resident of Nalgonda, lodged a complaint stating that he is having two plots at Thirumala hills, Thirumalagiri in Sy.No. 169 IAA plot Nos. 19 & 20 an extent of 224 Sq. Yards registered vide Document No.1645/2000 dated 17 .O5.2OOO and 2 EryJ CrLP.No.l33E of 2021 Sy.No. 189/AA, 189/8 an Extent of 200 Sq. yards plot No.AMB-66 vide Document No:537/2006 dated

17.O2.2OO3, which were registered at Sub-Registration Offrce, Suryapet, one on his name and another on his wife Jatoth Vani's name. One Vadanaala Chandra Mohal, S/o.Sai1u, R/o. Thirumalagiri, cheated him by mortgage his plots documents worth Rs 2O,OO,OOO/- (twenty lakhs) as surety vide Document No. 1508 1 / 20 1 6 dated

13.12.2016 to the Andhra Bank, Thirumalagiri Branch and obtained loan without his consent, with an intention to cheat him by colluding with the then Bank ManagerlA2, Vadalaala Chandra Mohal/A1, by forged the signatures of the de-facto complainant and his wife on the documents submitted to the Andhra Bank, Thirumalagiri Branch and obtained loal by keeping his plot documents as surety. Hence, he requested to take necessa-ry legal action on Vadanaala Chandra Mohan/Al and the then Bank Manager/A2, who sanctioned loan.

4. Learned counsel for the penionerlA2 contended that the Complainant has suppressed the material facts of the ) ) ,)/, 3 E''I/,J Crl.P.No-1j38 of 2021 case. He further contended that a Proprietorship by the narne of M/s.Nishika Sarojini Fuels Station had approached Andhra Bank on 30.12.2016 for the purpose of obtaining a Fuel Station (SOD) Loan fo1 an amount of Rs. 20,OO,OO0/-. The Accused No.1, the Complainant and the Complainant's wife were the co-obligants of the Proprietorship and executed necessary documents to obtain loan in favour of Andhra Bank. The Accused No.l mortgaged immovable property through Memorardum of Deposit of Title Deeds bearing Doc.No.2l44/2O16, the Complainant's wile mortgaged immovable property through Memorandum of Deposit of Title Deeds bearing Doc.No. 15081/2016 and the Complainant mortgaged immovable property through Memorandum of Deposit of Title Deeds bearing Doc.No.15081/2016. The Accused No.1, Complainant arrd the Complainant's wife deposited the title deeds of the properties in question with an intent to create al equitable mortgage in favour of Andhra Bank as security for the loan amount. The Accused No.1, the Complainant Effi the Complainant's wife gave Undertaking l,etters/Admission letters to Andhra Bank along with the I 4 EVV,J Crl.P.No.l338 of 2021 company stating that Andhra Bank had the discretion to resort to any remedies available for recovery of dues. They then failed to repay the loan as per the repa5rment schedule and hence, Andhra Bank filed a suit -bearing O.S.No. 152/2019 before the learned Senior Civil Judge at Suryapet for recovery, which is currently pending.

5. He further contended that the instant complaint arraying the Balrk Manager, discharging his official duties, as an Accused, amounts to gross abuse of law and contrar5r to the decision rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in M,N,Ojha & Ors. as. Alok Kumar Sriaastqa & Ors.r

6. He further contended that in FIR No.l77 of 2Ol9 "Andhra Bank Manager" is shown as accused No.2 ald no details of accused No.2 was provided either in the complaint or in the FIR. However, Section 41-A(1), Cr.P.C notice dated 24.11.2020 was issued by the P.S. Thirumalagiri to the PeLitioner herein/A2. l2oo9l 9 scc 682 ) ) 5 Et tal Crl.P.No-1338 of 2021

7. He further contended that the Complainant was well aware of the Memorandum of Deposit of Title Deeds executed by Andhra Bank through the Petitioner, which is evident from the fact that the Complainant and the Complainant's wife signed the said document as executants and also put their fingerprints and photographs on the sarne as required under Section 32A of Registration Act, 1908, therefore, the Complainant cannot now allege that he had no knowledge of the mortgage deed as the Complainant and the Complainant's wife presented the document at the registration office and the same was registered as Doc.No. 15081 /2016.

8. He further contended that the Complainant is the brother-in-law ol accused No.1 and that the Complainalt had full knowledge of the execution of mortgage deed and the original Sale Deeds bearing Doc.No. 1645/2000 and. Doc.No.537/2006 were deposited with Andhra Bank and it i6 unreasonable to assume that the Complainant and his I wife were not aware of their original Sale Deeds being deposited. He further contended that the Complainant filed -t .. -lrai:..:. 6 EryJ CrLP.No.lj38 oJ 2021 the present complaint a-fter Andhra Bank issued notice under Section l3(2), The Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Securities Interest Act, 2OO2 on 01.10.2019. He further contended that the Complainant has filed the present complaint with an ulterior motive of delaying repayment of the loan to Andhra Bank and with a view to wriggle out of the liability under the SARFAESI proceedings, which have been initiated against the complainant 9 . He further contended that the present matter is essentialiy of a civil nature and a suit has been hled by Andhra Bank against the Complainant, the Complainant's wife and accused No,l for repayment of the loan bearing O.S.No.152 of 2019 on the hle of the learned Senior Civil Judge, Suryapet arrd the Complainant has hled the present complaint with a malafide intention to delay repa5rment of the loan and to put pressure on Andhra Bank through criminal proceedings. ) ) 7 EYrJ Crl-P-No.1338 of 2021

10. He further contended that there are no merits in the complaint arrd it has been lodged only with an ulterior motive to harass the Petitioner and Andhra Bank. The Complainant suppressed the material facts that the Complainant had knowledge of the mortgage deed. He further contended that there is no specific overt act alleged against the Petitioner herein and the contents of the complaint are vague and ambiguous. The complaint merely states that the accused No.1 coiluded with the then Balk Manager and no specihc allegations of forgery or cheating has been made against the Petitioner herein. 1 I . He further contended that the Petitioner herein only signed Doc.No.15O81 of 2016 on behalf of Andhra Bank and not in his personal capacity and the petitioner has only acted in his offrcial capacity as an employee of Andhra Bank and the Petitioner has no further involvement in the subject transaction. Hence, no allegations of forgery or cheating can be made out against the Petitioner herein. He further contended that the alleged mortgage dr_rcument was executed in 2016 and the complaint was not filed until i' ./' I 8 EryI CTLP,N<t.1338 of 2021 2019 and the delay for filing the criminal case is not explained. Hence, he seeks to allow the Criminal Petition.

12. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor submits that unless and until the investigation is completed, the truth cannot be elicited, interference of this Court at this juncture is unwarranted. Therefore, he seeks to dismiss the Crimina,l Petition.

13. A perusal of material on record reveals that after three years of disbursement of the loan amount, the present crimina-l case is filed. Further, Andhra Bank filed a suit in O.S.No. l52l2ol9 before the learned Senior Civil Judge, Suryapet for recovery of the loan and the subject mortgage deed has been registered before the concerned Sub-Registrar Office. Further the contents of the F.I.R. reveal that no specific and distinct allegations are made against the petitioner herein. In the absence of any specihc role attributed to the petitioner/A2, it would be unjust if he is forced to go through the tribulations of the trial for the offences under Sections 420, 465 r lw 34 of IPC. :, 9 EW,J Crl.P.No.1338 of 2021

14. Having regard to the submissions made by the respective learned counsel arrd upon careful consideration of the material available on record, this Court is of the view that it is a fit case to quash the proceertjngs against the petitioner/A2 in Crime No.177 of 2Ol9 of Thirumatgiri, Suryapet District.

15. Accordingly, the Criminal petition is allowed and the proceedings against the petitioner / A2 in Crime No. 177 of 2Ol9 of Thirumalgiri, Suryapet District are hereby quashed Miscellaneous Petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed. SD/. L LAKSHMI BABU ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// tbecnoru oFFrcER To,

1. The Judicial First Class Magistrate, Thungathurthy 2. The Station House Officer, Thirumalgiri P.S., Suryapet District 3 One CC to SRl. R SUSHANTH REDDY Advocate [OPUC] 4. Two CCs to PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, High Court at Hyderabad (OUT) 5. Two CD Copies Vsnr/PSL HIGH COURT DATED:2410212025 ORDER CRLP.No.1338 of 2021 -i tiE S I,q (- ( (\ f <\ 2I APr 20?5 * oasn,iTCp i .J \ \. ALLOWING THE CRIMINAL PETITION 2, l4le6