The High Court · 2025

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 FIR No. 320 of 2018 dated 09.07.2018 on the file of 2nd ...RESPONDENTS Respondent. l.A. NO: 1 OF 2018 Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P .C praying that in the circumstances stated in the lvlemorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to grant stay of all further proceedings including the arrest of the petitioners in FIR No. 320 of 20 18 dated 09.07.2018 on the file of 2nd Respondent pending disposal of the Criminal Petition. i i t.A. NO :2 OF 2018 Petition under section 4g2 0f cr.p.c praying that in the circumstances stared in the Memorandum of Grounds of criminar petition, the High court may be pleased to extend the interim order passed in rA.No. 1 0t 2:o1B in crr.p.No. 7643 of 20'18 dated 23_07_201A, pending before this High Court. l.A. NO: 1 oF 2021 Between: The State of Telangana, Rep. the. public prosecutor, High Court at Hyderabad ANO

1. K, Ashok Kumar S/o late K. Arjun Rao, 2 K. Suchitha Rani Wo K Ashok Kumar, ...PETITIONERS/RESPONDENT 3 The Station House Officer, p S Saifabad, Hyderabad t 3:i:r?i3-"fl1"'i'$5;i37"ram Bhavan Branch, Basheerbash, Hvderabad, ..RESPONDENTS/ACCUSED (R-4 is not necessary party) ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT Petition under Section 4g2 of Cr.p.C prayi stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal be pleased to vacate the stay granted in Crlp No. Court dt: 23t07t2O18. ng that in the circumstances Petition, the High Court may 764312018 on the fite of High This petition coming on for hearing,upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of criminar petition and upon hearing the arguments of sri Vedura srinivas ,Advocate for the petitioner, sri m. Vivekananda Reddy, Assistant pubric Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No. 1 and of Sri Arun Kumar Satyavolu, Advocate for the Respondent No. 3. The Court made the following: ORDER j THE HOTYOURABLE SRJ JUSTTCE K.SURENDER CRIMINAL PETITION No.7643 ()F 2018 ORDER: This Criminal petition is frled by the petitioners/A _2 arrd A-3 seeking to quash FIR.No.32O of 2Olg, on the frle of 2na respondent. The petitioners herein are alleged for the offences under Sections 406, 419 and. 42O of IpC.

2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri M.Vivekalanda Reddy, learned Assistant public prosecutor for respondent No.1-State. perused the record.

3. The petitioners herein are arrayed as A_2 and. A_3. The complaint was hled by the Chief Manager, SBI, parishram Bhavan Branch on OT.OZ.2OLS. In the said complaint, the Chief Manager narrated that A-1 (died on 15.O9.2OIT) approached the bank in the year, 2OO5 requesting mortgage loan against housing property. Legal opinion was obtained and technical valuation was done. Thereafter, Rs.20,O0,OOO/_ was sarctioned on 27.06.2005. The original title deeds were also deposited by the said K.Arjun in respect of house property bearing No.5-5-708 admeasuring 375 sq.yards. l l <.:t 2

4. Some amounts were paid and outstalding stood out to be Rs.10.98 lakhs. Since borrower failed to pay EMI's, proceedings under SARFAESI were initiated on 14.09.2011, after notice was issued on 25.05.20I 1.

5. Further, it is stated that on enquiry, bank came to know that K.Arjun had fraudulently executed registered sale deeds and GPA to buyers on 06.11.2003, 22.09.2OO3, 18.09.2003 and

30.05.2003 in favour of these petitioners who are son and daughter-in-1aw. Accordingly, complainant expressed collusion in between'K.Arjun and these petitioners for selling away the property to 3.d parties fraudulently for higher sale consideration.

6. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners would submit that these petitioners have nothing to do with the loan taken by the deceased K.Arjun. Even according to the complaint, it was K.Arjun who approached the bank and taken loan of Rs.20 lakhs in the year, 2005. The transactions in question were much prior to father of A-2 obtaining loan. 3

7. Learned counsel appearing for the bank would submit that the petitioners colluded with the deceased K.Arjun which is evident from the transfer transactions of the property.

8. The offences are registered under Section 406 of IPC for criminal misappropriation, Section 419 of IPC for impersonation and Section 42O of IPC for cheating.

9. Learned counsel appearing for the Bank admits that at no point of time, the petitioners herein have approached the bank for obtaining loan. In the said circumstances, when the petitioner never approached the bank, the question of any entrustment by the bank does not arise. The offence under Section 406 of IPC would only be made out when it is proved that there was entrustment and pursuant to said entrustment, the subject property was misappropriated or converted to ones own use. Unless the said ingredients are made out, the offence under Section 406 of IPC is not attracted.

10. Similarly, the question of impersonation for the purpose of cheating does not arise. When the petitioners never approached the bank, the question of making any false statement or inducing the bank does not arise. It is not ( ( l l 4 mentioned as to how the petitioners have impersonated to attract an offence under Section 419 of IPC and cheated with the balk to attract an offence under Section 420 of IPC.

11. The loan was taken in the year, 2005. The property was transferred in the name of the petitioners herein in the year, 20O3. The petitioners never approached the bank or signed any document while the loan was being taken. All the transactions do not suggest that the petitioners even had knowledge of father of A-2 taking loan. Further, loan of Rs.2O lakhs was taken in the year, 2005. The property was classified as NPA on

01.01.201O, after 5 years. Meanwhile, half of the Ioan appears to have been repaid with interest. The transactions are purely civil in nature. The complaint was frled only to exert pressure on the petitione4s to settle civil claims and the same calnot be permitted. Accordingly, the proceedings against the petitioners herein are quashed.

12. In the result, the Criminal Petition is allowed. Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. //TRUE COPY// Sd/- P. PADMANABHA REDDY NT REGISTRAR AS XI SECTION OFFICER \ To, 1 2 The I Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Nampally, Hyderabad The S^tation House Officer, Saifabad p5fice Station, H,ToeraUaO r wo uus to the pubric prosecutor. High court for th'e State of rerangana at Hyderabad. [OUTI 9n" 99 to Sri Veduta Srinivas. Advocate tOpUCl

4. 5. VH/gh Two CD Copiesw='"--=;=l=iqiri r ' ,-,,"rru - uist; -{!l' ttd:? HIGH COURT DATED: 0510212025 ORDER CRLP.No.7643 of 2018 i Sr4 14: J T J 2 3 APR zfifi z .l t f)Fspn r r-',* r-o ALLOWING THE CRIMINAL PETIT!ON I t