The High Court · 2025

Petition under Section 482 of CI.P.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to stay all further Proceedings including presence of the petitioners in connection with in C.C.No.946 of 2010 on the file of the Vll Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Nampally, Hyderabad for the offence under Sec. 209, 420,463,464,468 tPC. This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri K B Ramanna Dora, Advocate for the Petitioners and Sri M.Vivekananda Reddy, Assistant Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No.1 and none appeared for the Respondent No.2. The Court made the following: OROER THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE J. SREENTVAS RAO CRIMINAL PETITION No.4O36 OF 2()19 ORDER This criminal petition has been filed seeking quash of C-C.No.946 of 2O1O on the lile of VII Additiorlal Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Nampally, Hyderabad wherein the petitioners were arrayed as accused Nos. 1, 3 and 4 for the offences punishable under Section 2O9, 42O, 463,464, 468 of the Indian Penal Code ('IPC' for brevity).

2. Heard Sri K.B. Ramanna Dora, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri M.Vivekananda Reddy, Iearned Assistant Public Prosecutor. In spite of service of notice, respondent No.2 has not chosen to enter appearance and this Court has no other option except to proceed with ttre matter on merits.

3. Submissions of learned counsel for the petitioners:

3.1. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that respondent No.2 availed a loan amount of Rs.8.O0 lakhs on 77.02.1999 from petitioner No. 1 and executed all loan documents in its favour and on execution of the said documents, the petitioner No. 1 disbursed the loan and also opened SEOD Loan A/ c No.32 and allowed respondent No.2 to operate upon the same. Respondent No.2 2 JSR, J Crt.P.No.4036 of20l9 deliberately committed default in payment of said loan amount and therefore, petitioner No. 1 bank initiated recovery proceedings against respondent No.2 before the Arbitrator - cum - Deputy Division, Nampally, Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Golconda Hyderabad who directed respondent No.2 to pay a sum of . Rs.7,38,O79/- with interest @ 20% per annum from the date of Iiling of the Arbitration petition till the date of realization. Aggrieved by the same, respondent No.2 irled C.T.A. No.238 of 2003 before the A.P. Cooperative Tribunal, at Hyderabad and the said tribunal has dismissed the said appeal by its order dated 03.O8.2009. Questioning the same, respondent No.2 liled W.P.No.18684 of 2OO9 before the Composite High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad and the said writ petition was dismissed by its order dated ll.O7 .2014 and aggrieved by the same, respondent No.2 filed W.A.No. 1O44 ol 2Ol4 before this Court and the same was also dismissed on I | .O9 .2024.

3.2. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that respondent No.2 lodged a compiaint against the petitioners and other accused on the alleged ground that the documents namely exhibits Al 1, Bl and B15 are created and fabricated documents and made false claims against the respondent No.2. Basing on the 3 JSR,.T Crt.P.No.4036 of 20 l9 same, crime No.96 of 2009 was registered against the petitioners and others. The Investigating Officer after conducting investigation filed final report before II Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad and the said Court has taken cognizance and numbered the same as C.C.No.946 of 2O10.

3.3. Learned counsel vehemently contended that the exhibit A1 1, B 1 and B 15 were marked in C.T.A.No.238 of 2003. Initially the Cooperative Tribunal, Hyderabad, allowed the C.T.A.No.262 of 2OO1 oo 79.07 .2OO2 and remanded the matter to Arbitrator for fresh adjudication. Accordingly oo 2L.O4.2O03, Arbitrator passed award afresh in A.R.C. No.25 of 2003 directing respondent No.2 to pay a sum of Rs.7,38,079/-. Thereafter, respondent No.2 filed C.T.A. No.238 of 2003 and the same was allowed by its order dated

12.06.2006. Aggrieved by the same, petitioner No. 1 filed W.P.No. 14428 of 2006 before composite High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad and the same was allowed on 18.72.2006 and was remitted to Cooperative Tribunal with a direction to pass orders afresh. Thereafter, the Cooperative Tribunal dismissed the same on 03.08.2009 and confirmed the award passed in A.R.C. No.25 of 2OO3. The above said judgment passed by the Cooperative Tribuna,l was confirmed by this Court in W.P.No.18684 of 20O9 on 4 JSR, J Crl.P-No.4036 of 2019 lI.O7.2Ol4 and the W.A.No. 1044 of 2Ol4 frled by respondent No.2 was also dismissed on 11.09.2024 and tJle judgment dated

03.08.2009 passed by the Cooperative Tribunal has become final.

3.4. Respondent No.2 lodged the present complaint against the petitioners basing on the judgment passed by the Cooperative Tribunal dated 19.07.2002 and the said judgment is not in existence, pursuant to the subsequent judgment passed by the Cooperative Tribunal on O3.08.2OO9 and the judgment passed by the Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No. 1O44 of 2074 dated I 1.09.2O24 has become hnal. Hence, continuation of the proceedings against the petitioners basing on the non existing proceedings is clear abuse of process of law and the same is liable to be quashed.

4. Submissions of learned Assistant Public Prosecutor:

4.1. Per contra, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor submits that whether the petitioners have committed the offence or not, basing on the subsequent orders passed by the Cooperative Tribunal dated O3.08.2OO9 and the orders passed by this Court in W.P. No.18684 of 2009, dated ll.O7.2ol4 and W.A.No. 1044 of 2OI4, dated

11.09.2024 whether the petitioners are entitled for the benefits basing on the subsequent orders, the same has to be adjudicated \ \ 5 JSR, J Crl.P.No.4036 of 2019 I by the trial Court and the petitioners are not entitled to seek quash of the proceedings at this stage.

5. Analvsis:

5. 1. Having considered the rival submissions made by respective parties and after perusal of the material available on record, it reveals that respondent No.2 lodged complaint on l2.O3.2OOq basing on the judgment passed by the Cooperative Tribunal in C.T.A. No.262 of 2OO1 dated 19.07.2O02 alleging that the exhibits All, 81 and 815 are fabricated documents. The record reveals that petitioner No. I had approached this Court and firled W.P.No. 14428 of 2006 and the same was allowed on 18.12.2006 and remitted the matter to Cooperative Tribunal for fresh disposal. Thereafter, the Cooperative Tribunal dismissed the C.T.A.No.238 of 2OO3 on O3.08.2OO9 holding that exhibit All, 81 and B15 are fabricated documents which are produced by respondent No.2. The above said judgment was confirmed by this Court at the instance of respondent No.2 in W.P.No. 18684 of 2009 on ll.O7.2Ol4 and judgment dated 11.O9.2024 in W.A.No.1044 of 2014. Hence, this Court is of the view that by virtue of dismissal of the writ petition namely W.P.No.18684 of 2OO9, conhrming the award dated O3.08.2OO9 passed by the Cooperative Tribunal, continuation of the 6 JSR, J Crl P No.4O36 of 2019 proceedings against the petitioners basing on the allegation made by the respondent No.2 especially pursuant to che non-edsting judgment dated 19.O7 .2002 in CTA No.262 of 200 1 is clear abuse of process of law and the same is liable to be quashed. Accordingly, proceedings initiated against the petitioners in C.C.No.946 of 20lO are quashed.

6. In the result, the criminal petition is aliowed. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in the criminal petition shall stand closed. //TRUE COPY// SD/- G JYOTHI, ASSISiTANT REGISTRAR. G SECTION OFFICER To,

1. The Vll Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad 2. The Station House Officer, Abid Road Police Station, Hyderabad 3. Two CCs to Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad [OUT]

4. One CC to Sri K B Ramanna Dora, Advocate [OPUC] 5. Two CD Copies AI]K Yr I I I I HIGH COURT DATED: 311101202j ORDER CRLP.No.4036 of 2019 ( a) O i- SiArE z 6) * 15 N[\ T6 I DFs ALLOWING THE CRIMINAL PETITION t{ "A % ht'