The High Court · 2025

...Petitioner/Accused No.l 1. Lhe State of Telangana, Rep. by Public prosecutor, High Court Buildings, ...RespondenUComplainant 2. The Tahsildar, Namoor Mandal, Namoor Adilabad District. Hyderabad. ...RespondenUDefacto Complainant 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 crime No.30 of 2010 on the file of the Narnoor Police Station, Adilabad District. Telangana statefor the alleged charge U/Sec.420 IPC and Section 16 (1),(a),(b),Section 24 of A.p.Schedubd Ar6a Money Lenders RegulTlON 1960 against the petitioners. l.A. NO: 2OF 2021 Petition under section 482 of cr.p.c praying that in the circumstances stated !n the Memorandum of Grounds of criminal petition, the High cou!-t may be pleased to grant stay of all further proceedings in the crime No.50 of 2010 on the file of the Narnoor Police station, Adilabad District, Telangana state including arrest of the Petitioner. _ This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of criminal Petition and upon hearing ihe arguments of sri Suresh, counsel representing Mr. s. Rahul Reddy, Advocate for the petitioner and the Sri E. Ganesh, Assistant Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No.1 and None Appeared for the Respondent No.2. The Court made the followin!: ebili-irbN OhDER THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE E.V.VENTIGOPAL 2A2L OF COMMON ORDER: Criminal Petition No.4822 of 2021 is filed seeking to quash the proceedings against the petitioner/Al in Crime No.89 of 2O1O on the file of Utnoor Police Station, Adilabad District, registered for the offences punishable under Section 42O IPC and Section 16(1Xa)(b), Section 24 of the A.P.Scheduled Area Money Lenders Regulation, 1960 (for short the Regulation, 196O).

2. Criminal Petition No.4823 of 2021 is filed seeking to quash the proceedings against the petitioner/Al in Crime No.30 of. 2O 1O on the file of Narnoor Police Station, Adilabad District, registered for the offences punishable under Section 42O IPC and Section 16(1)(a)(b), Section 24 of the A.P.Scheduled Area Money Lenders Regulation, 196O. 1 1 \ .r I I I ! I :

3. Since in both the Criminal Petitions, the petitioner is one and the same and arising out of similar offences, they are being heard together and disposed of by way of this Common Order.

4. Brief facts of the case in Criminal Petition No.4822 of 2021 are as follows: The 2nd respondent/Tahsildar, Utnoor, Adilabad District, lodged a complaint with the Station House Officer, Utnoor, on 28.08.2010 stating that the follo*irrg ir!^. organizations conducting money lending business in the district: U Basics, 2l SKS (Swayam Krushi), 3) Samulla, 4l Spandana, 5i L&T, and 6) Trinity. Among these, the SKS (Swayam Krushi) Microfinance Organization, owned by Proprietor Akkula Vikram, residing at Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad, along with their employe 1) D. Venkateshwarlu, Unit Manager, Branch Utnoor, 2l Mahender, 3) Gopi Krishna, and others, all residents of Utnoor are cond.ucting money lending business in Utnoor Mandal, which is a notified h** agency area, in violation of rules by operating without obtaining a license from the Agency Revenue Divisional officer, utnoor. They are charging exorbitant interest rates from poor tribals and cheating them. The money lending business conducted by sKS (swayam Krushi) is detrimental to the poor tribals and is ultimately leading them into finahcial trouble. Necessar5r action is requested against the accused, with reference to the Circular vide Letter No. TMPU/ L44 l2OlO, dated 26.07.2O1O, issued by the Project Officer, ITDA Utnoor, Adilabad District.

5. Basing on the said complaint, a case in Crime No.89 of 2o1o under section 420 of IPC and section 16(1)(a)(b) and 24of the A.P.Scheduled Area Money Lenders Regulation, L96O and took up the investigation

6. Brief facts of the case in Criminal Petition No.482p of 2021 are as follows: \ The 2nd respondent/Tahsildar, Utnoor, Adilabad District, lodged a complaint with the Station House Officer, Utnoor, on 29.O8.2O1O stating that the follo*ing six organizations are engaged in money lending business in the district, namely: U Basics, 2l SKS (Swayam Krushi), 3) Sharumulla, 4l Spandana, 5) L&T, and 6) Trinit5r. Amcng these organizations, the SKS (Swayam Krushi) Microfinance Organization, Proprietor Akkula Vikram, residing a-t .-Iubilee Hills, Hyderabad, along with their employees - 1) K. Santosh, Unit Manager, Branch Utnoor, 2) N. Mahender, 3) Gopi Krishna, and others, all residents of Utno are conducting money lending business in Narnoor iv.fandal, v.rhich is a notified agency area, in vioiation of rules by operating without obtaining a license from the Agency Revenue Divisional Oflicer. They are charging the highest interest rates from poor tribals and cheating them. The money lending business conducted by SKS (Swayam Krushi) is detrimental to rhe L t pooritribals and is ultimately leading them into financiai _1."' trouble. Necessar5r action is requested against the accused, with reference to the Circular vide Letter No. TMPU/ L44|2OLO, dated 26.07.2010, issued by the Project Officer, ITDA Utnoor, Adilabad District.

7. Basing on the said complaint, a case in Crime No.3O of 2010 under Section 420 of IPC and Section 16(1)(a)(b) and 24of 'ttre A.P.Scheduled Area Money Lenders Regulation, 196O and took up the investigation.

8. Sri Suresh, learned counsel representing Sri S Rahul Reddy, learned counsel on record, placed reliance on the common order passed by the coordinated bench of this Court in W.P. Nos. 2OL48 of 2O1O & batch dated L8.O4.2O23, which in turn relied upon the judgment of the Honble Division Bench of this Court in W.P. No. 25891 of 2OIO & batch dated L4.O2,2O23. In the said judgment, it was held that NBFCs operating in the States of Telangana and Andhra Pradesh, registered with the RBI, would be excluded frorn the purview o.f the above two enactments. Accordingly, he submitted that the petitioner is qn NBFC registered with the Reserye Bank of India and, therefore, the allegations made in the complaint lodged by the Tahsildar, Utnoor Mandal, Adilabad District, are false. He further submitted that this court passed an interim order on 29.06.2o2L , which is extracted hereunder: "Crt.P.No.4B22 cf 2021 Notice to 2"d respondent. Personal notice is permitted List on 23.O7.2O2i. A perusal of the record would reueal that Cr.No.89 of 2O10 was registered on 2B.OB.2O[0 on the complaint lodged bg Ta?tsild.ar, {Jtnoor,.Mandal: In the said complaint, he has relied upon the Circular dated 26.07.2010 wLtich wai under chnllenge in a batch of writ petitions inctuding W.P.No.2O148 of 2O1A wherein this Court hai granted interim suspension of the said cirqtrar dated 26.07.201o uide ord.er dated 16.0s.2o10. It is also releuant to note that the 2d respond.ent herein is partg to the said writ petitions Sn S.Rahul Reddy, learned counsetfortlte petitioner placing reliance on the principte laid down bg th.e'Hon'ble supreme court in suihit sbthi and. \.rr Another u. State of Arunachal Pradesht would submit that the 2"d respondent has not made companA as party. The petttioner being the then non- exeattiue Chairman of Sl(S Microfinance Lirnited is not liabte uicariouslg, since there are no spectfic alleg ations ag ainst him. As stated aboue, though the crime was registered in tlrc year 2070, the Inuestigating Olftcer has not completed inuestigation so far. TTtere fs no explanation, much less plausible erylanation bg the Inuestigatirug Officer for the abnormal delay caused in completing the inuestigation and issuance of notice under Section 41-A Cr-P.C only on 10.03.2021. examination. In uieut of the aboue, the matter requires Therefore, there shall be stag of all further proceedings including arrest of the petitioner herein in Cr.No.S9 of 2O1O, pending on the file of Utnoor Police Station, Adilabad Distict." g. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the petitioner is the non-executive Chairman of SKS Microfina.nce Limited and is not liable vicariously. He also submitted that, although the crime was registered in the year 2OLO, the respondent/police issued a notice under Section 4L-A Cr.P.C. only in2O?1, rlzozo;: t&?o Page E of 13 after a lapse of more than ten years. He contended that the petitioner has no role in the business trrrr"""tior" pertaining to sKS MicrofinErnce Limited, where he serves as non-executive chairman, and that these transactions were conducted in violation of Sections 16(1)(a) and (b) and Section 24 of Regulation 1960.

10. Learned counsel further submitted that the Honble Division Bench examineci the scheme and provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Micro Finance Institutions (Regulation of Money Lencling) Act, 2aii, as well as the Telangana Micro Finance Institutions (Regulation of Money Lending) Act, 2oll, ancl found both enactments to be pari materia to the Kerala Act and the Gujarat Act. He also submitted that, in similar circumstances, the Honble Division Bench of this court disposed of w.p. No. 25891 of 2olo and batch on L4.o2.2o23, holding that NBFCs operating in the states of relangana and Andhra Pradesh registered with the RBI are excluded from the *trxrrview of the above two enactments. .1..::,:r Therefore, the continuation of criminal proceedings against the petitioner amounts to an nefifianer amortnts to an abuse of the process of law. 1 1. On the other hand, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent/ State submitted that the reliance placed by the learned counsel for the petitioner on the judgment of tl'..e Honble : Division Bench of this court in w.P. Nos. 25891 0f 2010 & batch, dated L4.o2.2O23, is not applicable in the present case. He stated that the crime has been registered against the petitioner for violation of the provisions under sections 16(1Xa) and (b) and section 24 of the A.P. scheduled Area Money Lenders Regulation, 1960, and not under the prolisions of the Andhra Pradesh Micro Finance Institutions (Regulation of Money Lending) Act, 2OLL, or the Telangana Micro Finance tnstitutions (Regulation of Money Lending) Act, 2OtL He further submitted that the petitioner has misconceived that he is being prosecuted under -th", \-\ ^;P Page l0 oi 13 aforesaid Acts and therefore sought dismissal of the petitions L2. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant public prosecutor for the respondent/state, and upon perusal of the material available on record, it is an admitted fact that cases in crime Nos. 89 and 3o of 2oro have been registered for offences under section 42o and uncier sections 16(1)(a) and (b), and section 24 of the A.p. schedureci Area Money Lenders Reguiation, .r.960, and not under the provisions of the Andhra pradesh Micro Finance Institutions (Regulation of Mcney Lending) Act, 2crl, or [he, Telar,€:ana.Miero Finance Institutions (Regulation of Money knding) Act, 2OLL Hence, it cannot be presumed t.l-at the petitioner is to be tried under the provisions of either cf these two Acts. 13- Moreover, the petitioner has failed to establish that, as on the date of filing the FIR, the said institution was registered with the RBI. No such document has Page 11 of13 been filed before this Court. Under these circumstances, this Court does not find any reason to quash the proceedings in the subject crimes registered against the petifioner. The judgment of the Honble Division Bench will not come to the petitioner's rescue. \ \ \ \ L4. It is needless to mention that the petitioner is at liberty to avail appropriate legal remedies available under law, if so advised, before the learned trial Court by filing an application for discharge. The petitioner is also at liberty to file documents to prove that the firm was registered with the RBI as on the date of registration of the crime. Upon filing such an application along with relevant documents, the learned trial Court shall consider the same on merits, without being inlhrenced by any observations made in this order, and pass appropriate orders strictly in accord€rnce with law, as expeditiously AS possible, preferably within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this ordeI. _-

15. With the above direction, these Criminal Petitions are disposed ot. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending, shall stand dismissed. SD'. U.SUDHA ASSISTANT REGISTRAR. ,TTRUE COPY" OFFICER To,

1. The Judicial Magistrate First Class at Utnoor' 2. The station Houie officer, Narnoor Police Station 3. Two CCs to the Public Pteseeutsr, Hig'fr Court for , Adilabad District. the State of Telangana at Hyderabad.tOUTl

4. One CC to Mr- S. R.ahul Reddy, Advocate IOPUC] 5. Two CD CoPies Kam/PSL @ = t - HIGH GOURT DATED:04108t202s I I {HE S Y 0 g JA|l 2026 ..\ -* ORDER CRLP.Nos.4822 and 4B2l of 2021 DISPOSING OF THE CRIMINAL PETITIONS 6