The High Court · 2025

Petition under section 15'l cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High court may be pteased to stay all further proceedings including in c.c.No.6/2002 on the file of First Addl. Metropolitan sessions Judge, Hyderabad pending disposal of this criminal Petition in the interest of justice. Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri L. Pranathi Reddy counsel for the Respondent: Sri D. Arun Kumar, Additional public prosecutor The Court made the following: ORDER THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.3O3 of 2024 ORAL ORDER: This C)riminal Revision case is llled ch rJlenl3ing the order dated 04.O1.2024 passed in Crl.M.P.No. )06 of 2023 in C.C.No.6 of 2OO2 by the lcarned I Additionai l\4ctropolitan Sessions . ludge, Hyderabad.

2. The brief facts of the case arc that, base I on .r report lodged by tl're Principal Secretary, (lovernmcrrr of Andhra Pradesh, along with the Registrar of Co-opera rivc Socreties on 25.O2.2OO2, Crime No.6 of 2OO2 n,as regisrc recl against the management of Thc Charminar Co-opc ': t ivc. Urban Bank Ltd., Hyderabad, its officials, and certain ir, rrrot ers for. misapproprirltion of bank funds through hctitio.r:; loans. The allegation against the pe titioner/ accused No.9l ..r.as that, in conspiracy rvrth other accused, he executed i partnership deed in the name of M/s. Cyber City Comp-p16;s rvith a person impersonating late C. Janardhan Rao. stood as co- applicant and guarantor for the loan obtained c I'r tlt e basis of a forged equitable mortgage deed, and the,rcby ,:heatcd 2 sxs,J C.l.R.C.No.3O3 of2024 '\, the bank. The trial Court, after considering the material on record and the submissrons of both sides, held that there was suflrcient pima facie material to frame charges against the petitioner for the offences under Sections 4O9,42O, and 12O-B IPC read with Section 5 of the A.p. protection of Depositors of Financial Establishments Act, 1999, and accordingly dismissed the discharge petition filed by the petitioner/ accused No.93. Aggrreved thereby, Lhe present criminal revision case is filecl.

3. Heard Smt. L. Pranathi Re dd1,, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner as well as Sri D. Arun Kumar, learned Additional Public prosecutor appearing on behalf of Lhe respondent State.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the charge sheet did not disclosc thc commission of any cognizable offence ancl that the essential ingredients of Secticrns 4O9,419,42O, and 120 B IpC rea<i with Section 5 of the A.P. Protection of Depositors of Financial Establishrnents Act, 1999, wele llot rnade out against rJre petitioner. He further submitted that there was no specific \ \ -."*:7.: 3 SKS,J Crl.R C No.303 of 2024 entrustment or fraudulent intent attribu.cd to the petitioner. who was only a co-applicanl and qu:rlran;',lr u'ith no direct role in the bank's affairs. He contenclcd that the main borrou'ers, accused Nos.89 and 90, h:r,l repaid the entire loan ilmount of Rs. 1,30,13,139/- unde- a otre tirne settlement, for which the bank issued a No Ducs Certificate, and that the High Court had already c u ashed the proceedings against the principai borrowers. Thr:refore, continuation of prosecution against the pe tition r:r rvas unwarranted and amounted to abuse of procels,s of law and prayed the Court to set aside the order of the trial Court by allowing this criminal revision case.

5. On the other hand, learned Addit.onal Public Prosecutor opposed the submissions made b,r the learned counsel for the petitioner, stating that the tri rl Cor-rrt had already considered ali these aspects while dis;nissing the discharge petition, and that mere payment of ttre loan amount by the principal borrower is not a val d ground for discharge. He further submitted that there are no sufltcient grounds to aliow the petition, and the same is liabl.e to be dismissed. 4 sI{s,J Crl.R.C.No,3O3 of 2024

6. In the light of rhe submissions made by both the learned counsel and upon a perusal of the material available on record, it appears that the petitioner was arrayed as accused No.93, and the allegation against him was that accused Nos.92 and 93 slood as guarantors for the loan obtained by Accused No.9O, wherein Accused No.91 had lmpersonated another person, and the petitioner knowingly signed the said documents. Hou,evcr, the record shows that the principal borrower had already repaid the entire loan amount, and the bank, by its letter dated 2g. I |.2OOT , informed the prosecuting agency that accused Nos.g9 and 9O had paid the total amount as per the modihed one-time settlement scheme. Subscquentl_y, on 09.O9.2O10, a No Dues Certihcate was issued to accused No.9O, and this Court later quashed the proceedings against him. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, continuation of the proceedings against the petitioner is not warranted.

7. Accordingly, this Criminal Revision Case is allowed, setting aside the order dated 04.O1.2024 passed in Cri.M.P.No. 1 106 of 2023 in C.C.No.6 of 2OO2 by the learned \ \ .-__ -- -d-_++q4_-.-i*, ., 5 SKS,J Crt.1{.O.No.3O3 of 2O24 I Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hr-Jr:rabra.d, and the petitioner is hereby discharged from the all,:g,ed offences Miscellaneous applications, if any prrrrding, shall stand ciosed SD/- V KAVITHA DEPUTY REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTI N OFFICER To,

1. The First Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hydr:rebad. 2. Two CCs to the Public Prosecutor, High Court for the l]tate of Telangana at Hyderabad.IOUT] I I

3. One CC to Sri L. Pranathi Reddy, Advocate [OPUC] 4. Two CD Copies VIYAT]K HIGH COURT DATED: 2411012025 ORDER CRLRC.No.303 ot 2024 c ) 6 i!,1 nat 6 ot t )F.9n Arc *€o * ALLOWING CRL.R.C \\