The High Court · 2025

This Petition coming on for hearing upon perusirrr the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the a'( uments of Sri G.V.S NAGESH, Advocate for the Petitioner and the Sri Sri'ruas Kapadia, Special Public Prosecutor for CBI on behalf of the Respor lent No.1. and none appeared for the Respondent No.2. The Court made the following: ORDER : I I a IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HON'BLE SMT.JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA CRIMINAL PETITION No.14937 of 2025 Dale:29.12.2025 Between: Korrapati Subbaiah And The Central Bureau of lnvestigation, Through ACB, Hyderabad, Rep. by the Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana, Hyderabad and another ORDER: . Petitioner/Accused No.1 ... Respondents This Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioner-accused No.1 seeking to quash the proceedings in CC No.5914 of 2023 on the file of XXI Additional Judicial Magistrate cum Special Court of Sessions, Hyderabad, registered for the offence under Section 120- B read with Sections 420,464,467,468 and 471 lPC.

2. Heard'.Sri G.V.S. Nagesh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Srinivas Kapadia, learned Special Public Prqsecutor for CBI appearing for the respondent No.1 . ,/ 2 EID,J C.l.P. No.1a9i7 ol 2025

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has su :mitted that the allegations made against the petitioner are utterly 'i lse and that the petitioner is a civil contfactor and has obtainecl loans from the banks, after obtaining the legal opinion on the docu nents submitted by him. Now, the de facto complainant cannot ; llege any fraud against the petitioner. The Bank Authorities have pr rpedy evaluated the documents and after obtaining the legal opinic,r from the panel Advocates only, loan was sanctioned to the pe t tioner. Learned counsel has further submitted that if all the docunr )nts are alleged to be forged and fake, then the authorities invol.r rd in giving the legal opinion and sanctioning the loan, also cc .lld have been implicated in the case, but the Bank Officials anr not included in these proceedings, which itself shows the falsity il the allegations. He further submitted that the documents were b3 ng sent by the prosecuting agency to the Central Forensic Sc e rce Laboratory (CFSL), wherein it was held that the questione,i signatures are tallied with the admitted signatures, thus the sanr r disproved the case of the prosecution and he further submitted hat there is no truth in the allegation that the petitioner has sipht ted away huge amounts, because no such amounts were diver ed to his own 3 EfD,J c.t,P. no.I1t37 ol 2025 aocount. l-le, therefore, prayed to quash the proceedings against the petitioner

4. Learned Special Standing Counsel for CBI has submitted that each and every document produced before the Bank is a forged document and that the prosecution could collect voluminous documents in this case to prove the offence of forgery against the petitioner herein. The CFSL report clearly reveals the element of forgery and the act of forgery committed by the petitioner herein. The argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the CFSL report disproves the case of the prosecution is not supported by any material. He further submitted that, with the documents collected by the prosecuting agency and with the material evidence on record, the offences against the petitioner are bound to be proved. He, therefore, prayed to dismiss the petition.

5. Perused the record

6. The record discloses that the petitioner-accused No.1 has availed credit facilities with Syndicate Bank, Chandanagar Branch to an extent of Rs.10.00 crores against the primary and collateral securities and accused No.4 stood as a guarantor and subsequently, accused No.1 committed default in repayment of tlrc 4 EfD,J Ctl.P.No.1193t ot 7o2s loan and thus, the account was declared as NPA )n enquiry, it is realized that the petitioner has submitted fzrl e sub-contract agreement, non-existent work orders in conspiracy vith his vendors accused Nos.12, 3 and 4 mortgaged the assets ,which are non- existent and further has siphoned off the borrovnd funds which resulted wrongful loss to the Bank to a tune of Rs.1 1.30 crores and wrongful gain for themselves. ln the vigilan: : investigation conducted by the Bank, there were serious irreguler ties and lapses committed by accused Nos.9 to 1'l and further it is alleged that accused No.2 submitted a valuation report inflating he value of the collateral properties submitted by accused No.1 anc thus, the Bank has declared the account as fraud on 1 1.04.2018. 7 lt is further revealed that the signatures of I l/s.Vigneswara Constructions, represented by its Managing Partn,: Mr.Sura Nagi Reddy and M/s.Rghava Conskuctions, represented I y its Managrng Director Mr. Ponguleti Prasada Reddy, were forgtr d by accused No.1 on the sub-contract agreements dated il .09 2015 and

03.09.2015, respectively. lt is also revealed during the course of investigation that the signatures of M/s.A.S. Nai,l r & Company represented by its Partner M.S. Sriranga Gorantla vas forged by accused No. 1 on the projected provisional fin;r rcials for the i iI I 5 EID,J Crl.P- tlo.1a937 ol ,025 Financial Year 2016-17 and further the investigating agency could ascertain the forgery by sending the documents to the concerned laboratory. lt is further revealed that accused No.7 in conspiracy with accused Nos.1, 3 to 6 executed registered sale deeds dated

05.08.2015 fo create .link documents in favour of accused Nos.3 and 4 in respect of vacant lands situated at pothireddipalli village, Sangareddy Mandal. The accused No.7 has no land or tifle to the said properties as on the date of said sale transaction. The land conversion proceedings from agricultural to non-agriculture are said to have been issued by Mr.G. Dharma Rao, the then RDO, Sangareddy to accused No.7 vlde proceedings dated 26.05.2014 mentioned in the said sale deeds which were also found to be fake, fabricated and forged. Subsequently, accused Nos.3 and 4 got executed two separate sale deeds in favour of accused No..l on

27.11.2015 within a period of three and half months from the date of purchase under the same false representation. Thereafter, the accused No.1 deposited the sale deeds with Syndicate Bank, Chandanagar Branch on 08.01.2016 as security towards the credit facilities availed by him to a tune of Rs.1 2.30 Crores.

8. Thus, a prima facie case exists against the petitioner herein-accused No.1. The contention of the learned counsel for the i I 6 ETD,J Crl.P. No.119i7 ol 2025 petitioner is that no document is submitted by the r rspondent No.1- CBI evidencing denial by the competent authority o prosecute the Bank Officials. Thus, his contention is that in a czu e of sanctioning the loan based on fake documents, the bank aut rorities ought to have been implicated in this case. Thus, he firrr s fault with the competent authority for not taking action against :l e bank officials. The said contention cannot dilute the offence alle 3ed against lhe petitioner and cannot entitle him to seek quash in t re present case The learned counsel has further contended that lre report of the CFSL confirms the authenticity of the signaturr s and that the alleEation of forgery against the petitioner cannot re proved, while the Special Standing Counsel contends that the eports of CFSL proves the offence against the petitioners herein i nd confirms the element of forgery. The said issue is triable before, he trial court

9. The another contention of the learnec counsel for the petitioner is that the properties mortgaged by the retitioner during the year 2015 were previously alienated by tl'r vendor of the petitioner during 2002. But, the Registering Autho ities entertained the registration of sale deeds in favour of the p,t titioner for their vested interest victimizing the petitioner herein. Thu ;, his contention is that the petitioner is a bonafide purchaser a r I he cannot be ,, I I , I 7 EfO,J Cn.P. No,11!r3l ol2025 blamed for the fraud committed by his vendor. However, the said element cannot be looked into in the quash petition. The fraud committed by the vendor of the petitioner, if any, or the allegation of forgery as against the petitioner, can be made out only after a full- fledged triai. This Court cannot conduct a roving enquiry in a quash petition. lt is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the prosecution failed to place the letter of the competent authority absolving the bank officials in this case. lt is for the prosecution to produce the best evidence before the court and that cannot be a reason to exempt the petitioner herern from the prosecution case. Thus, since the allegations prima facie points out the offence alleged against the petitioner, the petitioner is not entitled to any relief in this petition. A voluminous material is collected by the prosecution during the investigation and the same need to be tested dwing the course of trial. Therefore, it rs not a fit case to quash the proceedings. However, it is deemed appropriate to dispose of the petition by dispensing with the attendance of the petitioner before the trial court.

10. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is disposed of dispensing with the attendance of the petittoner before the trial court provided he is represented by a counsel before the trial court on i I 8 EfD,J Ctl.P. No-1a937 ol 2025 every date of hearing and he shall be present beforr the trial court as and when his presence is required during the cour ;e of trial. Miscellaneous Petitions, pending if any, shall r;l rnd closed \ To, //TRUE COPY// sl) - A!; il P PONNA STANT RE KRISHNAG:Y:|E' \ \rroN oFFrcER '1. The XXI Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate and t pecial Judge for CBt Cases, Hyderbad.

2. The Station House Officer, CBl, ACB Police Station, ll' derabad. 3 ]wo- CC_s to the_Special Public Prosecutor, for CBl, A() l, Cases High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad [OUT] 4. One CC to SRI c.V.S. NAGESH Advocate IOPUC] 5. Two CD Copies NVB/At]K I HIGH COURT DATED:2911212025 ORDER CRLP.No.14937 ot 2025 ( * rlES 3 ir tAN 2026 * E qTC\ DISPOSING THE CRIMINAL PETITION {t<s G b