Allowed

V.S.R.Narasimha Murthy v. the State of A.P. and 2 Others

Telangana HC4 Oct 2018CRLP/10238/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court quashed criminal proceedings against the petitioner, a bank Field Officer, filed under various IPC sections for forgery and cheating in the context of a tobacco loan scandal, opining that continuation would be an abuse of the process of law.

What did the court decide?

All further proceedings against Petitioner/A-2 in Crime No.21 of 2007 of Devarapalli Police Station are quashed.

V.S.R.Narasimha Murthy Vs the State of A.P. and 2… — Cheating and Forgery | Telangana HC (2018)

¶1

SMT JUSTICE T.RAJANI

¶2

CRIMINAL PETITION No.10238 OF 2011

¶3

ORDER :

¶4

This Criminal Petition, under section 482 of Cr.P.C., is filed by the Petitioner/A-2 seeking to quash the proceedings in Crime No.21 of 2007 of Devarapalli Police Station, West Godavari District, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 419, 420, 468, 477(A), 471 and 120-B of I.P.C.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Public Prosecutor, appearing for the 1^st and 2^nd respondents. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that 3^rd respondent is not a necessary party and is only a formal party.

¶6

The complaint is filed by the Branch Manager, State Bank of India, Devarapalli Branch, who is the 3^rd respondent herein, stating that their Bank was financing the Tobacco Growers, who are registered by the Tobacco Boards at Devarapalli and Koyallagudem, for tobacco cultivation. The non-registered growers would not get any finance from the Bank. Their Branch has financed for 821 growers to a tune of Rs.14.18 crores during the years 2005-06 and recovered their finance back 100%. As such, for the years 2006-07, they extensively financed for 1148 growers, who are duly registered by the Tobacco Boards at Devarapalli and Koyyalagudem, to a tune of Rs.20.12 crores. When the growers come for crop loans, their Bank insist for production of Tobacco Board Growers Registration Numbers from them. During the said process, the growers would submit the T.G. Pass Books to their Bank, which would contain their registration numbers. Likewise, their Bank financed 1148 tobacco growers by way of sanctioning loans to them between August, 2006 to January, 2007. The growers would directly pay the respective cash amounts at the rate of Rs.1.5 lakhs for each baron. While so, in the month of January, 2007, their Bank sent a list of growers, requesting them to route the sale proceeds of borrowers to their respective loan accounts, to facilitate their Bank to recover the loan amounts. Their Field Officer viz., V.S.R. Narasimha Murthy, who is none other than the petitioner herein, approached the Tobacco Board at Koyyalagudem in the 3^rd

¶7

TR,J Crl.P. No.10238 of 2011

¶8

¶9

week of January, 2007; the Auction Superintendent informed him to the effect that the names of the 8 persons mentioned in the complaint were not at all registered in their Board and were not given any T.G. Pass Books. On the information given there at, the Field Officer returned and informed the same to the Branch Manager, who is 3^rd respondent herein. Then, the Branch Manager along with Field officer, who is the petitioner herein, and their Staff verified the addresses given by the 8 persons in their T.G. Pass Books and, on thorough verification of their application forms, photos and other particulars, learnt that the addresses therein are fake, fabricated the T.G. Pass Books, falsified the figures and forged the signatures of Auction Superintendent and Field Officer of Koyyalagudem Tobacco Board in T.G. Pass Books by impersonating the photos and by playing fraud caused loss to the Bank to a tune of Rs.22.5 lakhs.

¶10

On the complaint filed by the Branch Manager, State Bank of India, Devarapalli, with these allegations, investigation was taken up and the accused who got to be figured are none other than the complainant - Branch Manager, who is the 3^rd respondent herein as A-1, and the Field Officer, who is the petitioner herein as A-2.

¶11

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the case was entrusted to C.B.C.I.D. and they could not trace out the aforesaid 8 persons, who obtained loans. It is obvious from the complaint itself that there was a huge rush on the date of sanctioning of loans, as 1148 Tobacco Growers were sanctioned loans on that day. Moreover, the complaint itself would reveal that the petitioner is not responsible for sanctioning any loans and he is only a person who went to the village to make an enquiry, on the instructions of the Branch Manager, who is shown as A-1, and absolutely no case is made out against this petitioner.

¶12

Hence, in view of the above, this Court opines that continuation of further proceedings against the petitioner would only be an abuse of process of law.

¶13

TR,J Crl.P. No.10238 of 2011

¶14

¶15

Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed and all further proceedings against the Petitioner/A-2 Crime No.21 of 2007 of Devarapalli Police Station, West Godavari District, are hereby quashed.

¶16

As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions if any, pending in this Petition shall stand closed.

¶17

Date: 04.10.2018. Dsh

¶18

TR,J Crl.P. No.10238 of 2011

¶19

¶20

SMT JUSTICE T.RAJANI

¶21

260

¶22

11102018

¶23

CRIMINAL PETITION No.10238 OF 2011

¶24

Date. 04.10.2018

¶25

DSH

V.S.R.Narasimha Murthy v. the State of A.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

V.S.R.Narasimha Murthy v. the State of A.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sanjeev Ladda, Khammam Dist. Vs the State of a.P.,Rep.by P.P., Hyderabad.

Chavva Venkateswarlu, Vs the State of Ap Rpe by Its Pp Hyd.

Sanjeev Ladda, Khammam Dist. Vs the State of a.P., Rep.by P.P., Hyderabad.

S.Mohammed Basha and Another Vs the State of A.P. and Another

Sabbarapu Suryanarayana Murthy, Rajahmundry, E.G.Dist. Vs the State of a.P.,Rep.by P.P.,Hyderabad, and Anr.

Adabala Vayukumar Vs State of Ap., and Another