High Court of Judicah · 2025

Petition under Section 482 of Cr.I'}.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounrls of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to quash the charge sheet in C.C.No.426 oI 2016 on the file of the XII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, I{ycierabad in so far as the petitioner is concerned, in the interest of justice. I.A. NO: 2OF 2019 Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grouncls of Criminal I'etition, the High Court may be pleased to grant stay of all furthcr proceedings including arrest of the petitioner pursuant to the charge sheet in C.C.No.426 of 2076 on the file of the XII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, l{yderabad, in the interest of justice. This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri M/s. Bharadwaj Associates, Advocate for the Petitioner and the Public Prosecutor on behalf o{ the Respondent No.1 and of Sri V.U.S.S.R.Anjaneyulu, Advocate for the Respondent No.2. The Court made the following: ORDER -Fl-=qu, .,/ -/ HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER CRIMINAL PETITION NO.147O OF 2019 JUDGMENT:

1. Petitioner/t\l has hled this petition to quash the criminal proceedings agatnst him in C.C.No.426 of 2O)6 on the file of XII Additional Chiel- Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad for the offence under Sections ,+06, 42O, and 468 IPC r/w 34 IPC.

2. According to the complaint hled by the Chief Manager of State Bank of Hyderabad, who was examined as L.W. 1, A1 and A2 approached the Bank for a loan. The sale deeds of the property meant for security towards loan were fabricated. The documents, i.e., hve sale deeds were in respect of 10 plots, which was assigned land. The five dor:uments were brought into existence with the help of A'3, who was the Sarpanch of Taramatipet village. The five sale deeds as listed in the charge sheet, wherein this petitioner is the purchaser, pertaln to ceiling surplus lands, which are prohibited by the Government lrom being sold or mortgaged. Having knowledge about the assigned lands, the sale deeds were deliberately brought into existence b1, A1 and 42, with the help of A3, and they approached the Bank for a loan of Rs.32.00 lakhs. The Bank 2 Officials/A6 and A7, and the panel Advocate/A5 helped A1 and A2 in obtaining the loan, even though A5 to A7 had knowledge that the land in question was assigned land.

3. A1 and ,A,2 did not pay even one installment. The Bank proceeded against A1 and A2, and it was found that the land was assigned land. On the basis of transactions, the bank found that the accused A1 to A8, had colluded to cause wrongful loss to the Bank and wrongful gain to this petitioner ald others.

4. Sri Vedula Venkata Ramana, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the transaction is purely a commercial Bank transaction and the loan was advanced after the Bank officials had inspected the land and gave opinion about the land that was mortgaged. The Bank can resort to recovery of the amount following due process. The petitioner was not aware that the land was assigned land and he had purchased the land from other buyers. It cannot be said that the petitioner had deliberately indulged in cheating the Bank by fabricating the sale deeds. 3

5. On the other hand, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor submits that A1 took loan by producing fake documents. The Bank was subjected to heavy loss on account of the illegal acts of this petitioner and ,rther accused, who have entered into a criminal conspiracy to cheat the Bank.

6. The transaction, i.e., the purchase of lalded property of 1O plots through five sa,le deeds by A1 was in th.e year 2005. After allegedly purchasing the said property, which is assigned land, according to thc investigation, 41 approached the Bank for a loan. The land, admitedly, was allotted by the Gove::nment to landless poor farmers, r,r,ho were entitled. Since it is assigned land, the question of transfer of the said land in any m€utner whatsoever is prohibited.

7. According to the investigation, having obtained the loan, not a single installment was paid to repay the loal. It can be safely inferred from the. conduct of this petitioner, who did not pay even a single loan installment after taking the loan, that this petitioner approached the llank with a fraudulent intent to defraud the Bank. In the process of cheating the Bank, A1 has registered the assigned l 4 land in his name and managed the Bank officials (A6 and A7) and also the panel advocate (A5) to suppress the fact that the land was assigned land.

8. Not a single EMI of the loan was paid even after the registration of the crime or when the Bank issued notices for repayment. The said conduct in itself would reflect that the petitioner had knowledge of the assigned lands and deliberately purchased the said land in collusion with the Sarpanch/A3, who is his cousin, and then obtained a loan.

9. The case is one of circumstantial evidence. The prosecution should have the opportunity to adduce evidence on the basis of documents collected during the investigation. The events that transpired in the case are on record in the form of documents, right from the purchase of plots, the execution of loan documents, and the failure to pay even a single installment towards repayment. It is for the trial Court to draw inferences on the basis of the documentar5r and oral evidence adduced by prosecution during trial. 5

10. There are absolutely no grounds to quash the proceedings against this pel itioner. 1i. Accordingty, Criminal Petition is dismissed. Consequently, miscellaneous :Lpplications pending, if any, shall stand closed. //TRUE COPY// SD/- MOHD. ISMAIL REGISTRAR ?EPUTY I ,,, \ecrroru oFFrcER The \ll Adtlirit,,ral Ch;cf M1[lptlitan Magisrrat at Hyderabacl Tnr, Sr"t r ion r I o r r st. (lffi, CCS|WaOi. i,llirriirrUr, Orrc (-C ro 11, Ilh.rr.rtlrr_ai.Arr".;u,"r, iavJ,iiu 1OrUC1 One CC r() sr.i \ .tJ q S n.n,i;rnoyrtr,'Xj"i*"i" ibpL,f I'rrbric I'.o','cutor,'r{i;i,'c;;;;;;ii;inss, fl: $'Siifi' "r. Hyderabad [opUC] 1 rR To, 1

2. .1. 4. 5. 6. ICK/ HIGH COURT DA'I'ED:71 /0a/2025 ORDER CRLI'.No.1470 of 2()1 !r Hf- STA, t k c f3 2 il APH 2[25 ( (' (- Dismissing thc Crin'rin,rl I)etition- * r:..iPAiCH sO A. * trl'7 'Lb