High Court · 2025

2. Smt. Mandala Poornima, Wo. Ajay Kumar Reddy, Aged about 46 years, Occ. Branch Manager, Telangana Grameena Bank, West Venkatapuram, Alwal, Ranag Reddy District. ...Respondent 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 call for the records in C.C.No. 1 136 of 20 19 on the file of the Vl Metropolitan Magistrate, lriledchal, Ranga Reddy District and Quash the same. l.A. NO: 1 OF 2019 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 grant Stay of all further proceedings including the appearance of the Petitioners in C.C.No. 1'1 36 of 2019 on the file of the Vl Metropolitan Magistrate, Medchal, Ranga Reddy District. i -:l- 8:w This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Crimina Petttion and upon hearing tlre arguments of Sri G. Vidhya Sagar. Senior Counsel for Sri Mamidi Avinash tleddy, Advocate for the Petitioners and Sri M. Vivekanand Reddy, Assistant public prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No.1. The Court made the following: ORDER THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER CRIMINAL PETITION No.7131 OF 2019 ORDER: This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., by the petitioners/accused Nos.S and 4, to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.1136 of 2079, on the file of the VI Metropolitan Magistrate, Medchal, Ranga Reddy District, for the offences under Sections 42O, 468, 471, and 120-8 read with Section 34 of I.P.C.

2. Heard Sri G.Vidya Sagar, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners/ accused Nos.5 and 4 and Sri M.Vivekananda Reddy, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the respondent No.1 - State. 3. Briefly, the facts of the case are that the accused Nos.l and 8, who are the husband and the wife respectively, were actively involved in preparing fictitious documents for the purpose of taking loans from the bank and providing the said fabricated documents to the persons who wanted to obtain loans, by taking huge amounts. According to the investigation, these petitioners were in a Iinancial crisis and approached the accused No.1, who promised to secure loan I 2 from Telangana Grameena Bank. Accordingly, documentation was done by the accused No.1, and a loan of Rr;.35,00,O00/- was sanctionerl on 20 .06.2015, prior to lo<lging of the complaint. An amount of Rs.13,00,000./- was; paid towards EMl/repayments. The complaint was filed on 28.10.2015. According to the complaint, the Bank came to k.row that loan was obtained by filing fabricated documents in respect of the four properties. One such property was mortgzrged by these petitioners.

4. The complaint was investigated by the Police, Alwal Police Station, and during the investigation, they found that the accused Nos. 1, 6, and 8 are the persolls, r,vho are responsible fcrr preparing the fabricated documents. As on the date of lodging the compiaint, i.e., 28. i0 .2OI5, an amount of Rs.13,O0,0OO/- was repaid by the petitioners. It is not disputed that the entire amount of loan was repaid by the petitioners during pendency of investigation and the housing loan transaction was closed on the payment of the loan amount with interest. The Branch Manager of Telangana Grameena Bank, addressed a letter to the litation House Ofhcer, Alwal, when enquired about loan transaction. In his J Ietter dated 04.O5.2O16, bearing Letter No.F/Police/ 16- 17 /17, he stated as follows: 'Sri Badam Ramesh Reddg, S/o.Ram ReddA resident of H.No.11-1O 26/ 1, Plot No.Ql, SBI Colong, LB Nagar Circle, Saroor Nagar, Hgderabad - 35, utho auailed housing loan of Rs.35.O0 lakhs on 20.06.2O14 against Housing loan beaing No.79O215O4O10 has closed the so.me on 02.05.2016 bg paging principal plus interest."

5. Even according to the investigation, on submission of the documents by the petitioners, a document verification was done and legal opinion was sought for. On the basis of the legal opinion and the valuation reports, the house was inspected on 22.O5.2O 14 and the application was forwarded to the Regional Office. The loan amount of Rs.35,O0,OO0/- was sanctioned and disbursed on different dates. However, an encumbrance certihcate was taken and the fraud was detected. By the time the fraud was detected, an amount of Rs.13,OO,O00/- was already paid and Rs.22.93 lakhs was outstanding. The entire amount, along with interest, was paid on 04.05.2016, i.e., 3 years prior to frling of the charge-sheet

6. It is not the case of the Balk that the petitioners took loan and absconded nor it is their case that the petitioners 4 have defaulted in payment of any EMIs. The lrran was taken on 20.06.2014, and as on the date of 28.1O.2015, i.e., after I year and 4 months, the repayment of Rs.13,0O,OO0/- was made. The bonafides of the petitioners are reflected from the manner in which the repayment was made. It c,lnnot be said from the present facts that the petitioners entertained any fraudulent intention at the inception of the trzrnsaction i.e., while obtaining the loan. From the repayment of Rs. 13,00,000/- within 1 year and 4 months, jt is apparent that the loan was taken with the intention of repayment and further, once the complaint was filed on 23.10.2015, the entire loan amount was repaid, along with the interest, within 7 months of the complaint. According to the pr,osecution, the petitioners were not involved in any kind ol' fabrication of documents. The allegation is that they have zrpproached the bank with the documents that were provided by the accused Nos.1 and 8 and nowhere it is mentioned that r_he petitioners have taten the assistance of the accused Nos.1 and 8 and in collusion with them, they have filed the fabricatr:d documents.

7. From the present circumstances, it canrrot be said that the petitioners even had knowledge of the dor:uments being I t 5 fabricated at the time of furnishing them in the bank. The said inference can be drawn from the fact that the petitioners sincerely repaid the outstanding loan amount. As can be seen from the allegations made, a total of four loans, which was obtained with the involvement of the accused Nos. 1 and 8, were advanced, and out of these, the petitioners have only repaid one loan amount, while the other three loan amounts remain unpaid.

8. The ingredients of cheating are not made out in the present case. Even according to the Bank, the bank officials have taken a legal opinion and also obtained a valuation report and thereafter, advanced the loan.

9. In the present peculiar circumstances, the inference of the petitioners being involved in defrauding the bank cannot be drawn. The fact remains that the entire amount was repaid with interest within 7 months from the date of lodging of the said complaint.

10. The charge-sheet was filed 3 years thereafter. On facts of the present case, none of the ingredients of cheating are made out insofar as the petitioners and the transactions in the bank account are concerned. t ! 6 1 1. Accordingly, this Criminal Petition is allowed Consequently, the proceedings aplainst petitioners/accused Nos.5 and 4 in C.C.No.113(r of 2079, on the fiIe of the VI Metropolitan Magistrate, Medchal, Ranga Reddy District, are quashed. Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. //TRUE COPYII D SD/- MOHD. ISMAIL EPUTY REGISTRAR I -- -_- \ rseiirou oFFtcER To, 1 Il " Yt M_etropolitan Magistrate, Medchal, Ranga Recdy District 2. The S.H O. Police Station, Alwal, Cyberabad Coirmissiorierate 3 One CC to Sri Mamidi Avinash Reddy, Advocate [OpUC] 4. Two CCs to The Public Prosecutor, High Court foithe st;ite of Telangana at 5. Two CD Copies Hyderabad [OUT] HIGH COURT DATED 28t2t2025 ORDER CRLP.No 7131 of 2019 61't : t,.r t \, 'i) 2J IIF 2M ,t I \ ,l/- I CRIMINAL PETITION IS ALLOWED 4