The High Court · 2025

blic Prosecutor, High Court for the d about 47 years, Occ. Authorised o Plot No.'1 19, Meenakshi House, .,.RESPONDENTS Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Cri be pleased to quash the proceedings in C.C. Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, at Hy either on facts or under law. raying that in the circumstances inal Petition, the High Court may o 794 ol 2016 on the file of the I erabad as the same is untenable l.A. NO: 1 OF 2019 Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Cri be pleased to stay all further proceedings purs file of the I Additional Chief Metropolitan M Appearance of the Petitioner pending dispos the interest of justice. rayrng that in the circumstances inal Petition, the High Court may ant to C.C No.794 of 2016 on the gistrate, at Hyderabad including Iof the plain Criminal Petition in This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of sri Gadi Praveen Kumar, Advocate for the petitioner and the sri M. Vivekananda Reddy, Assistant Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No 1 and of sri s.v.s. Chowdary, Advocate for the Respondent No.2. The Court made the following: ORDER THE HONOURABLE SRI STICE K.SURENDER CRIMINAL PETITION 0.2366 ()F 2019 ORDER: This Criminal Petition is fil by the petitioner/ accused to quash the proceedings in C.C. o.794 of 2016 pending on the file of I Additional Chie Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad.

2. Heard learned counse the petitioner, Sri M.Vivekananda Reddy, I arned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the respond nt State and Sri S.V.S.Chowdary, learned coun el for respondent No.2. Perused the record.

3. The de facto cornplainant f espondent No.2 lodged a complaint with the Police, Saifa ad, alleging that the firm Jagruthi Foundations, purchased 500 square yards of land from the petitioner herein on 2 .06.1993. The entire sale consideration was paid and phys cal possession was taken. The petitioner represented that e original sale deed of the plot was misplaced and could not e traced, and on the basis of registered sale deed, registrati n was done in favour of 2 respondent No.2. Subsequently, respondent No.2 came to know that the original document was misused by accused Nos. 1, 2, and 3 to obtain loan from the Union Bank of India.

4. The Bank officials went to the property to attach the said propert5r, and then lhe de facto cornplainant came to know regarding misuse of original sale deed by accused Nos.1 to 3, to obtain loan from the bank fraudulently.

5. On the basis of the complaint filed by the de facto complainant and after completion of investigation, the police Iiled charge-sheet against the petitioner/ accused for the offence under Sections 406, 418, and 423 of lpC.

6. It is mentioned in the charge-sheet that the police conducted investigation and they came to know that the petitioner, with the help of accused Nos.2 and 3, approached the Union Bank of India to obtain loan. Thereafter, accused Nos.2 and 3 repaid the entire loan amount, which was outstanding to the Bank and accordingly, loan transaction was closed. For the said reason, accused Nos.2 and 3 were not charge-sheeted, however, only the petitioner herein was charge-sheeted. ,

7. The learned counsel appearing for petitioner/accused would submit t at the entire bank loan was repaid and there is no outstand ng amount. As such, the question of the petitioner defraudi respondent No.2, does not arise.

8. On the other hand, learned co nsel for respondent No.2 would submit that respondent No.2 ad deliberately informed that she had lost the original sa e deed. However, with fraudulent intention, the petitioner/ sed misused the said document and placed it before the ank and obtained loan, which itself would go to show the fr udulent intention of the petitioner to cheat the de facto compl nant/respondent No.2

9. As seen from the record, the n-rx of the allegation of respondent No.2 is that the petition approached the Union Bank of India and obtained loan, wh le accused Nos.2 and 3 stood as sureties. However, no witn ss from the bank was examined, nor the charge-sheet flects that any bank documents were filed before the Co below to show that accused Nos.l to 3 approached the b and obtained loan 4

10. The bank documents and bank witnesses would only be proof of the alleged role played by the petitioner herein and the alleged fraudulent transaction. In the absence of details of the bank transactions, relevant bank documents, statements of witnesses from the bank, it cannot be said that the petitioner was involved in any fraudulent act with the bank causing wrongful loss to respondent No.2. Further, it is not stated by respondent No.2 as to how he was cheated or'that any wrongful loss ensued.

11. For the reason of not filing any loan tralsaction documents, and not examining any one from the bank, which forms the crux of the case, the proceedings against the petitioner/ accused are liable to be quashed. However, this order will not preclude the d,e facto complatnant from taking recourse to any proceeding against the petitioner, if entitled ----------v / 5

12. Accordingly, the Crimin Petition is allowed Miscellaneous applications pendin , if any, shall stand closed. SD/- K. AMMAJI D PUTY REGISTRAR //TRUE COP To, 1 2 3 4 6 The I Additionat Chief Metropotitan Magi The Station House Officer, Saifabad pJt Two CCs to the Public prosecutor, Hig at Hyderabad. [OUT] One CC to Sri Gadi Praveen Kumar.Adv One CC to Sri S.V.S. Chowdary, Advocat Two CD Copies CTION OFFICER trate, at H erabad ce Station, Hyderabad District. Court for the State of Telangana cate [OPUC] loPUCl karrr'l)Sl HIGH COURT DATED:1 210212025 ORDER CRLP.No.2366 of 2019 4 I4: o 6 r- z (. .{ t 13 [tJB 2m * t o c 1r ALLOWING THE CRIMINAL PETITION