The High Court dismissed a criminal petition filed to quash proceedings against the petitioners, holding that the petition was premature as the petitioners were not yet named as accused, though the police had sought documents from them. The interim stay was vacated.
Interim stay granted on 19.08.2011 is vacated.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
SMT JUSTI CE T. RAJANI
CRI MI NAL PETI TI ON No.7 2 6 9 of 2 0 1 1
ORDER:
This criminal petition is filed, seeking for quash of the proceedings in Cr.No.514 of 2011, against the petitioners, on the file of the Station House Officer, Panjagutta Police Station, Hyderabad. The offences alleged are under Sections 167, 193, 204, 465, 477-A and 420 of the Indian Penal Code.
2
orally that at the time of sanction in case of their premises falling vacant/ without earning rents for any unforeseen reason they will not treat their account as Non Performing Asset. The premises was leased out to M/ s. Nipuna Services Limited, a sister company of M/ s. Satyam Computer Services Limited. It appears that when Satyam Computers fell into doldrums, there was some problem in collecting and appropriating rents to the loan account. At that juncture, they addressed a letter to the Chairman of Andhra Bank dated 22.01.2009 and mentioned all the facts. The main allegation in the complaint is that they noticed a letter dated 20.30.2009, which, in fact, is the letter dated 22.01.2009 and they contend that the said date is manipulated to declare the account as Non-Performing Asset.
3
In the light of the above, the criminal petition is dismissed. It is, however, made clear that the petitioners can avail the remedy, under Section 482 CrPC, if they are figured as accused in the course of investigation. The interim stay granted on 19.08.2011 shall stand vacated. As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, shall stand closed.
__________
T. RAJANI, J
September 7, 2018
DSK
3 issues framed by the court
Whether a petition seeking quashing of proceedings is maintainable when the petitioners are not shown as accused in the FIR and police action amounts only to a document call-up.
Whether a petition seeking quashing of proceedings is premature when the petitioners are not yet considered accused in the investigation.
Whether the order dismissing the petition precludes the petitioners from availing remedies under Section 482 CrPC if they are later figured as accused.
SMT JUSTI CE T. RAJANI
Andhra Bank
T. RAJANI
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
