The High Court · 2025

relangana , Rep bv its Public Prosecutor, High court at ' Il3"tl1'30"f 2. [Vlannam Venkata Krishna pag, S/o.Late Mannam Venkateshwar Rao. Aoed ii"l; ru ;r;;' s ;;,'' xh;ff " s' nro F tbi rio zol vll ti u l 3rl,i3 !? i,iil,s "l ... Respondents Petition under Section 4g2 of Cr.p.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds ci*il"i'p"iition, the High court mav be pleased to quash the order.of th" rvr"troporiiu,i'se".sions'.luosJ,'iyd"rr["'d',, "r crl'R'P'No.63 of 2o1s dated 17.6.201s, ii-r"'t"ir" the petitioners herein are concerned. I.A. NO:1 oF 2015(CRLP MP. NO : 8718 OF 20151 Petition under' Section 4g2 0f cr.p.c praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandr. oie .oun-0. ;i ;;i[]r;"iition, the Hish court mav be pleased to suspend the order of ,r" rtrlir"p"iii", slssions Judge, Hyderabad in crl R'p No 63 or 2o15 aateo r z.o.ior s, ;ffi;;i;lsar of the criminar petition. ,, CRIMIN ALP ETITION NO:869 2 0F 2015 Between: 1 2 3 Vishwavir Ahuia. CEO and Manag-ing Director RBL Bank Ltd. (Formerlv The Ratnakar Bark Limited). one rnoia"ouri,c;;ir;,"T";;;.)s*oA, "#rlililra,ill senapati Bapat rvtars.Lower pareriw)lMij;;;;;bodl':. sunit Gqlati, Risk officer The Ratnakar Bank Limited, one Indiaburs 6th rroor, a+i, s;;#;I; Hlillt.H,rJiiii"il; F;i;[f\i): 'hieJ fi:Ht? IBU,fi328, Sachin S.Somani, Vice president.The Ratnakar Bank Limited, One lndiabulls Centre, Tower 28. 6th Ftr tMumbai_4000.13. )or, 841, Senapati Bapat Miriilb;;; i.r.r"(fiil] AND ...Petitioner/Respondent No.2 to 4 rerangana', Rep bv its Pubtic prosecutor, High court at ' I?Ei:T:o"f 2' Mannam Venkata Krishna Rao- s/o.Late Mannam Venkateshwar Rao. Aoed u s ness' Rvo P bi ri":2q v; ilo?r,""., t't, g u, S a ga r X Roid, l3rlft 3l';,.3,ii.s ... Respondents Petition under Section 4g2 of Cr.p.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds ot ci_ilr]i"iition, the iijn c"ri rrvi" pleased to quash the order. of the Metroporiiui'su"r.,ons Judge, Hyderabad in !.|;}i;)j... of 2o1s dated 17.06.2015, ;;;; ;;s the petitioneri herein are t.A. NO: 10F 2015(CRLP MP. NO:8719 0F 2015) These Petitions co Petition under Section 4g2 0f cr.p.c praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds or ci-iI"]i"tition, lhe High court may be pleased to suspend the orle_r;ol^t[e_ nf"i.p"ilir. Sessrons Judge. Hyderabad in crl'R P No'64 of 2o1s dated 1 7.06.20r s, p"lii.g di.posar of the c.minar petition. on, for hearing, upon perusing the l\zlemorandum of Grounds of criminar petitions and upon h"";ilT; lrguments of smt. p V Aruna Kumari, Advocate for the petition"r. in ootn sri Syed yasar Mamoon, Additionar pubric prosecutor on beharf of thl n""p""o"rt No.1 in both cRlps and of Sri B Natin Kumai, Advocate tor ttre ResponJ"lif.r".z in both CRLps. The Court made the following: COMMON ORDER 'iiip"r'"no 1119 THE HONOURABLE SMT. WSTICE K. SUJANA CRIMINAL PETITION Nos.8691 & A692 of 2015 COMMON ORDER: These Criminal Petitions are filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 7973 (for short Cr.P.C.] to quash the orders dated 17.06.2015 passed in Crl.R.P.Nos.63 and 34 of 2015, respectively by the learned Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad.

2. The brief facts of the cases are that the complainalt, Managing Director of M/s. Manisha Agri Biotech Private Limited, approached accused No. 1 bank officiais, including A2 to A6, for a loan facilitlz. The officials collected blank cheques and original property documents, stating they were required for loan eligibility and legal opinion. The complainant alleged that the officials misused the blank cheques to withdraw Rs. 11,62,94O/- and Rs. 17,50,000/- from his account. The bank denied the allegations, claiming the loan was disbursed and recalled due to non-payment. The lower court dismissed the complaint, but the revision court set aside the order, finding the contentions of the complainant probable ald requiring further investigation into the alleged misuse of blank cheques. 2 SKS,J Crl.P.!tos-8691 E 8692 of 2015

3. Heard Smt. P.V. Aruna Kumari, learned counsel appeari4g on behalf of the petitioners as well as Sri Syed Yasar Mamoon, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of respondent No. l-State and Sri B' Narin Kumar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the

4. revision Court erred in not recognizing that the petitioners, being senior ofhcers of the bank's Corporate Office in Mumbai, had no role in the events described in the complaint, which pertains to the day-to-day operations of a specific trranch'The complaint fails to specifically allege any role or wrongdoing by the petitioners, relying instead on vague and bald statements, which is insuflicient to justify taking cognizance of the case against them. He further submitted that the complaint was frled withoqt merit, solely to harass the bank's senior management and stall collection efforts against Manisha Agro Biotech Private Ltd', a non-performing asset in the bank's books.The complaint constitutes an abuse of the judicial process, and the petitioners were included solely to harass them. SKS,J Crl.P.Nos.8691 & 8692 of 2015

5. karned counsel for the petitioners contended that it is well established that setting the criminal 1aw in motion is not a trivial matter, and in the absence of specilic allegations against a particular accused, the court should not take cognizance of the case against them in a cavaiier manner.The lower court correctly dismissed the complaint due to the lack of necessary pleadings and documents, but the revision court acted casually in allowing the petition without noticing the absence of allegations against the petitioners. The continuation of proceedings based on the complaint would be an abuse of the legal process, intended to harass the bank's senior officers.The Hon'ble Supreme Court has consistently held that without specihc allegations against management personnel, they cannot be implicated in a criminal case, as this would amount to an abuse of the legai process. Therefore, he prayed the Court to set aside the orders of t1le revision Court by allowing these criminal petitions.

6. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No.2 opposed the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners stating that that the petitioners' claims regarding the misutilization of blank cheques are unfounded. In both cases, the bank had disbursed the loan anounts in 4 SI(s,J Crl.P.Nos.8691 & 8592 of 2015 September 2014, with hxed EMIs of Rs' 9i,680/- and Rs' \ 70,314 l- respectively. The bank recalled the entire loan due to the petitioners' breach of terms and conditions, particularly the non-payment of loan instalments a-nd interest' The notice dated 27 .12.2014 does not mention the withdrawal of any amounts from the account of the petitioners, and the loan amounts were disbursed on 29.O9.2O 14, as evidenced by the statement of account. Furthermore, the petitioners' claim that the bank misutilized the blank cheques is contradicted by the fact that the notice d,ated 27.12.2014 does not refer to cheque numbers 482508 or 482509, nor the amounts of Rs.11,62,94Ol- or Rs.17,5O,OOO/-, which indicates that the bank did not present the cheques for withdrawal' The petitioners' failure to disclose this crucial information further supports the bank's position that the cheques were not misutilized, and the petitioner's allegations are baseless and without merit. Therefore, he prayed the Court to dismiss the criminal petitions.

7. In the light of the submissions made by troth the learned counsel and a perusal of the material available on record, the case of the de facto complainant is that he approached the petitioners' bank for a loan, submitting all the 5 SKS,J Crt.P.Nos.8691 & 8592 of 2Ol5 necessary documents along with signed blank cheques. However, the petitioners' oflicers in the accused No. l-bank allegedly demanded a 57o commission o4. the loan amount. The de facto complainalt refused to comply and requested the return of his documents, but instead of returning them, the bank issued a loan recovery notice. The petitioners, on the other hand, contend that the de facto complainant is a defaulter, and the loan account was categorized as a Non- Performing Asset (NPA) due to non-payment of loan and interest. The de facto complainantargue that there was no error in the revision Court's order, as the petitioners are based I in the Mumbai branch and are not connected to the alleged offence.

8. As seen from the record, particularly the complaint of the de lacto complainant, who is the Managing Director of M/s. Manisha Agri Biotech Private Limited' The complainant was allegedly misled by the bank officials who collected blank cheques and original property documents, stating they were required for processing the loal. The complainant was subsequently informed that the land was not properly located and was asked to pay a 5o/o.commission, which he refused' After demanding the return -of his documents, the 6 SKS,J Crl.P.Ios.869l & a692 of20l5 i complainant received a loan recall notice that did not specify the loal amount, prompting him to issue a reply stating the documents had been misused. The complainant alleges that . the bank misutilized the blank cheques and withdrew Rs. I 1,62,940/- from his personal account.

9. Further, the revision Court considered the sworn statement of the petitioners and documents fiied, dismissing the complaint, stating the loan account was non_operative and in the exclusive custody of the bank. The lower Court did not appreciate the grievance of the complainant, nor did it consider the absence of material proof from the bank regarding the loan account. However, this Court is of the opinicin that the contention of the de facto complainant that the bank misutilized his blank cheques holds merit, as the loan recall notice did not mention specilic details of the cheque number or the amount withdrawn. This suppression of facts by the bank suggests that the cheques may have been misused, and further investigation into this issue is warranted. Therefore, there is no elTor in the orders of the revision Court and these criminal petitions lack merit and the same is liable to be dismissed. 1 SKS,J Cil-P.Nos.8691 & 8692 of 2Ol5

10. Accordingly, these criminal petitions are dismissed. However, if the petitioners are no way connected with the alleged offence, they are at liberty to file a discharge petition before the trial Court. Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall stand closed. Sd/. P.CH. NAGABHUSHAMBA DEPUW REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, The Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad Two CCs to the Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad (OUT) One CC to SMT. P V ARUNA KUMARI, Advocate IOPUC] One CC to SRI B NALIN KUMAR, Advocate [OPUC] Two CD Copies 1 2 3 4 5 ADK/psl w HIGH COURT DATED:1 7 10312025 COMMON ORDER CRLP.Nos.8691 and 8692 of 2015 t ''"- A? mw \.u. \ 2W5 t DISMISSING THE BOTH CRLPs s*dd &,." i