Dismissed

Bodupally Anil Kumar v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC21 Nov 2022CRLRC/611/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal revision under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the High Court dismissed the accused's prayer for discharge in a bank loan fraud case. The Court held that the dispute had criminal facets and prima facie evidence existed, distinguishing cases where civil disputes are purely private.

What did the court decide?

The Criminal Revision Case was dismissed, confirming the trial court's judgment dismissing the discharge petition dated 21.02.2019.

Bodupally Anil Kumar Vs The State of Telangana — Banking and Recovery | Telangana HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶2

TVIONDAY,THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY TWO

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE G.RADHA RANI

¶5

CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 611 OF 20'tg

¶6

Criminal Revision case under Section 397&401 of Crl.P.C. against the Judgment in Crl.M.P.No.324 ol 2018 in C.C.No.2O of 2016 on the file of the Court of the lll Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases at Hyderabad.

¶7

Between:

¶8

Bodupally Anil,(umar, S/o. tvladhusudan Rao, aged about 42 yearc, R/o. HL-26, H.No.MlG-7, 2"' floor, Balaji Nagar Kukatpally, Hyderabad.

¶9

...Revision Petitioner/Petitioner/Accused No.3

¶10

AND

¶11

The State of Telangana, Rep. by Spl.P.P. for CBI/ACB, High Court, Hyderabad.

¶12

...RespondenURespondenUComplainant

¶13

lA NO: 1 OF 2019

¶14

Petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Revision Case, the High Court may be pleased to stay all further proceedings against the Revision Petitioner/Accused No.3 in C.C.No.20 of 2016 on the file of lll Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases at Hyderabad pending disposal of above Criminal Revision Case.

¶15

lA NO:^'f OF 2022

¶16

Petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. praying that in the circumstances state in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Revision Case, the High Court may be pleased to extend the interim order in dld: 201612019 in Cr|.R.C.No.61112019, until further orders.

¶17

lA NO: 2 OF 2022

¶18

Petition undr'Section 482 of Cr.P.C. praying that rr:he circumstances stated in the I,4emo andt-rm of Grounds of Criminal Revrson 1)ase the High Court may be pleased o erxtend the interim order dtd: 2t)t'.\612019 in CrIRC No.611/20'19 until fr ther orders.

¶19

Counsel for the Pet tioner: SRl. MOHD MUKHAIRUDDIN

¶20

Counsel for the Rer oondent: SRI N. NAGENDRAN, SpL^pF t:OR CBI

¶21

The Court made thr following: ORDER

¶22

¶23

Ot.GRR, t ulrc_617_2079

¶24

THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE G. RADHA RANI

¶25

CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No. 611 of 2019

¶26

This Criminal Revision Case is filed by the Petitioner-Accused No"3 aggrieved by the order dated 21.02.2019 in Cri.M.P.No.324 af 2018 in C.C.No.20 of 2016 on the file of the III Additional Special Judge for CBI Cases at Hyderabad in dismissing the discharge petition filed by him.

¶27

2" The case of the revision petitioner was that he obtained housing loan of Rs.20,00,000/- from Syndicate Bank, JSN Colony Branch, Hyderabad. He paid rnore than Rs.6,00,000/- as Equitable Monthly Installments (EMIs) towards his loan for few years and due to some unforeseen and unavoidable circumstances, he was not able to pay the nonthly installments at a later stage, due to which, the loan account tumed into a Non-Performing Asset (I.IPA). With due efforts with an intention to repay the loan amount to the bank, the revision petitioner collected funds and sent a proposal for One Time Settlement (OTS) of dues to Syndicate Bank, the same was accepted by the said bank and received payment of Rs.16,00,000/- from the revision petitioner. The said bank issued a 'No Due Certificate' (NDC) dated 06.04.2016 stating that 'Sri B.Anil Kumar (revision petitioner herein) had settled his dues with the bank under OTS on 22.02.2016 and they did not have any interest in the property". After clearing the dues in respect of the housing loan and obtaining NDC from the bank in April,20l6, the revision petitioner received summons dated 05.12.2016 in C.C.No.2O of 2016

Dr.GR

..4,l'

issued by the II Additional Speciat Judge for CBI Cas:r; ^r rrrO"rilff;i'ri-ioii offences punish b]e under sections I20-B, 420 rnd 4? r o1'Ipc and section l3(2)read with I ection l3(1Xd) of prevention of (.orr-upti'n,,\ct, l9gg.

¶32

3" The conte tion of the revision petitioner was that r:.,,en after repaying the dues to the bank and discharging his riability, the bank v;as still continuing to prosecute the car : against him which was an abuse of l)r()coss of law. After receipt of sumrn( ns, the revision petitioner appeared befbre r.he III Additionar Special Judge for IBI cases at Hyderabad. on receiving rl:e charge-sheet along with other docur erts from the court, the revision petitione : filed a petition under Section 23! of cr-p.c. to discharge him from the sir,r case, as the dispute between the parti' ; was already settred and continuance -11 pr()secution against the petitioner wor d be unjust and unrawful. Afte' hear,;z b,rth sides, the III Additional Specia Judge for cBI cases at Hyderabad di;rrissed the discharge petition.

¶33

4' Aggrieved t ' the said order, the petitioner-Accusec No.3 preferred this revision contendir 3 that the leamed Judge mechanicaill, passed the order without appreciatir g that the dispute was of civil in naturr. .,;vith criminal facets and the offences al :gecl against the revision petitioner be<,rnes compoundable on compromise bet veen the accused the de-f-acto conrplainrLrrt. .l-he Judge erred in not considering he law laid down in a similar case b1. Ihe Hon,ble Apex court in the case of \ikhil Mcrchant v. central Bureau r,r'Inrestigation and

¶34

¶35

Ot.GRR, I

¶36

othersr. The Judge ought to have appreciated that rhe dispute^'{:;;:k'i;:

¶37

revision petitioner and the Bank was set at rest on the basis of compromise arrived by them under orS, whereunder the dues ofthe Bank had been cleared and the Bank did not have any further claim against the revision petitioner. Hence the revision petitioner was entitled to be discharged from the criminal case. The Judge ought to have appreciated that in the charge-sheet at page I5 in point No.3, which described the role of borrowers in the offences as per investigation, the name of the petitioner-accused No.3 was not stated. Hence, it was admitted by the investigating officer that the petitioner-accused No.3 had not submitted fraudulent false Income Tax Retums, false final statements of account of his business, less value collateral securities or had shown high value construction rates in conspiracy with A1. The continuance of the case against the revision petitioner and asking him to face the lengthy and protracted trial would be miscarriage of justice leading to harassment and torture to the petitioner without any iota of proof against him in the said case. The Judge ought to have appreciated that there was no prima-facie evidence nor any incriminating material against the revision petitioner found in the FIR and charge-sheet with respect to the offences charged and hence the revision petitioner ought to have been discharged from the offences alleged against him in the charge-sheet. The Judge erred in not considering that in the absence of any evidence to show that there had been any common intention or to commit 'AIR^{2oo9 sc 428}

¶38

¶39

¶40

Dr.GRR, t crlrc-671-2079 criminal conspiracy^{or dishonest irltention to chert} ancl cause^wrongful economic^{gain or fol} ;ery^{by tho revision petitioner,the said )lfenr)esagainst the} revision^{petitioner u )re mis-conceivedand were not nlaintairablr: either in law} oronfactsandaSsuhwereliabletoberejectedandtlierevisionpetitionerwas liable to be^{discharg,d fromthe said offences and praYed r<t rilow the criminal} revision case^{by set ng aside the order of the III AdclitionrL Spt:cial Judge for} CBI Cases,^{Hyderatrd in Cri.M.P No 324 of 2018 in C C IIo'20of 2016 dated} 21.02.2019.

¶41

Heard the lear^{ed Counselfor the revision petitioneralrd Sri.N.Nagendratr,} learned Special^{Put ic Prosecutor for cBI cases represetr.it'g the respondent-} complainant.

¶42

As seen flo; r the^{record, Mr.M.MohanRecldy, 1lr.:' DeputyGeneral} ManagerofSyndictel}ank,Ilyderabadlodgedacrlm;llai,lLaEiainstoneGoli Sridhar, a realtor^{o1 Hyclerabad, v.Jagan MoharlRao. the the,n senior Manager,} Hanumantha Rao,^{te thenChiefManager, T GuruvaRed j" ' Senior Manager'} K.Rambabu,CivilEngineer,S'Chandrasekharan,Plrnel.l,.rluerofSyndicate Bank, JSN^{Colony }ranch,Habsiguda,Hyderabad and ageirlst trnknown public} andprivatepersonallegingthattheaccusedpersonSirrcc,lrspiracywithother borrowers^{had chet ed Syndicate Bankthrough forgery,critninalbreach of trust,} use of false^{docun onts as genuine and availed sevcntcerr l7) housingloans,} seven(07)personiloansandtwentyfive(25)housing]<r:tnscausinglossof Rs.10.98^{Crores to i1'ndicateBank'}

¶43

¶44

¶45

Dt.cRR, J c tc 677 2079 7. The SP, CBI, Hyderabad registered FIR bearing No.RC2(A/2014 under Sections 120-B, 409, 420, 465, 468, 471 of IpC and under Section l3(2) read with l3(1)(c)&(d) of Prevention of comrption Act, lggg and after investigation, filed charge-sheet.

¶46

In the charge-sheet it was alleged that the borrowers 43 to Ag entered into criminal conspiracy with Sri. V.Jagan Mohan Rao (Al) through s.chandrasekharan (A2) and III/S.Sunny Enclave Builders and Developers (A9) to cheat syndicate Bank and submitted housing loan applications to A1, enclosing false Income Tax returns for the assessment years i.e., 2005-06,200607,2007-08 and 2008-09. The borrowers had filed IT Retums on self-declared inflated gross income, less net income in order to become eligible to the housing loan, because as per the loan policy of the bank, the borrowers are eligible to the loan amount at six (06) times of gross income declared in the Income Tax Retums. The borrowers 43 to A8 submiued false construction estimates at a very high rate than the prevalent market rate. The borrowers submitted construction agreement with M/S.Sunny Enclave Builders and Developers (A9). The borrowers also offered short value securities as collaterar security to secure the said housing loans and submitted false asset and liability statement and false final accounts of their business to Sri.V.Jagan Mohan Rao (A1) for processing the said loan proposals" In pursuance of the said criminal conspiracy, Sri.s.chandrasekharan (A2) submitted false valuation reports inflating the values of the securities of five (05) Synl Housing Applicants. Sri.v.Jagan /

¶47

¶48

,:. ' i T "-:i? .^i.r!;.;r':

¶49

DI.GRR, crlrc 577 2079

¶50

Mohan Rao (A1) the then Senior Manager (Syndicate tlank), JSN Colony Branch, I{absiguc L, Hyderabad, in pursuance of the sai^j corLspiracy, did not veriff asset liabil y statements of the borrowers, false lirLal accounts of their business, accepte fake Income Tax Retums and inr'l at,:d valuation report submitted by ,A.2 A1 also inspected the properties iLn,J frlsely submitted inspection report quoting inflated value of the collate'rr sr:curities. Thus, Sri.V.Jagan Mohz r Rao (Al) dishonestly got the loan proltosrri processed and by abusing his of cial position as Public Servant sanctiorLr,rd five (05) housing loans during the y 'ar 2008 and disbursed Rs.92,00,000/- ro the borrowers. The borrowers could n rt pay the Equitable Monthly Installmerr':r,, (EMIs) to the bank as they had no usiness and no source of incorne. l-he Bank conducted departmental enqr ry and got the collateral securities revllued through another Panel Valuer. Tht Bank found that the value ofthe properties \yas very less and was not matching vith the outstanding loan amounts. The lrouses of ,A3 and ,44 were 100% compJ :te but their values were less than the o;tstanding amount in the account. Th rs, the Bank suffered a net loss of li.s.4'l.5 lakhs as on 30.06.2013

¶51

Basing on t e charge-sheet, the Special Judge for OEII Cases, Hyderabad had taken cognizi irce of the case for the offences punilrlnbk: under Sections 13(2) read with 1 (l)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Ac: ,Lnd Sections 120-8, 420 and 471 oflPt and issued summons to the accused

¶52

¶53

Dn.GRR, I ulrc 677 2079 10. On appearance and on receipt of the charge-sheet and the documents filed

¶54

along with the charge-sheet, the petitioner-accused No.3 filed this petition contending that the charge-sheet or the documents would not show any material or evidence that he was involved in conspiracy with the bank officials and the valuer. The allegations in FIR and charge-sheet were vague and the same were not supported by any evidence. There was no prima-facie evidence nor anyincriminating material against him to attract the offences alleged and relied upon the^judgments of the High Court of Madras in The Additional Superintendent of Police, CBI v. G.B.Anbalgan2 and of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Nikhil Merchant v. Central Bureau of Investigation and Others (l

¶55

supra).

¶56

ll. The trial court i.e., the III Additional Special Judge for CBI Cases, on hearing both the leamed counsel for the petitioner and the learned Special Public Prosecutor for CBI observed that:

¶57

"the allegations against the petitioner are thdt he submitted false Income Tax Returns, inflated valuation report and also submitted false construction estimates at very high rates than the market value in order to get the loan sanctioned in conspiracy with Al, A2 and A9 and the same has to be determined during the course of trial of main case regarding genuineness of the documents submitted by the petitioner to the bank at the time of availing loan and repayment of loan made by him in One Time Settlement as alleged by him will not absolve him fron his liability as lhe allegation constitute the criminal ofence and the same has

¶58

'z^{2014(4) MLJ (Crl.) 279}

¶59

¶60

:) --l++r:

¶61

lo be determ'ned during the course ,rf trial ,t,,the CtTS€.tl and dismissed t e petition.

¶62

Dr.G crlrc_577_2079

¶63

12" The learr :d c'runser for the revision petitioner- *:, ied rpon the jucigment of the Hon'bre Apex c.urt in Nikhit Merchanr r'. centrar Bureau of Investigation a d others (r supra) case. In the said l:se.lso, the cBI filed charge-sheet agi nst five (05) accused persons under S:r:tio. 120-B read with Sections 420, 4( I and 471 of IpC read with Secrions ;( 2) and 5(l)(d) of the Prevention of Co ruption Act, 1g47 and Section 13(2) re.,J wirh Section 13(rxd) of Prevention of , lornrption Act, 19gg.

¶64

13' A civil suir was also filed by the Bank for reco*er/ ,f the amount and in the civil suit' th company and the Bank entercd intc, cornpromise as the company agreed o pay the amounts due as per thc schecrr.rre mentioned in the concemed terms .nd the bank agreed to withdrarv all rr.Le .,egations made against the compa y. consequent upon the comprornise ( r- the suit, 43 filed an application for di charge from the criminal compraint irr re:spect of which charge-sheet was led by the cBI. The said applicatior "v.as^{rejected by the} Special Judge. (C) I), Greater Bombay. The same wa; che.llenged by the appeilant before th l30mbay High court. The Bombay ttr,1h ()ourt observing that the charge-she t was fired not only under Section 4zc ctf tpc which was compoundable but 'as arso fired under sections 467, 46g a^,r 4,,r of Ipc arong with the provisior ; o[ prevention of Comrption Act ,r hi:h were non_

¶65

¶66

Dr,GRR, t ulrc 677 2O79

¶67

¶68

compoundable, rejected the appellant's prayer for discharge from the^criminal

¶69

cases.

¶70

In the appeal, the Hon'ble Apex Court observed that:

¶71

"[n the instant csse, the disputes befieeen the Company and the Bank have been sel dt^{rest on} the basis of the compromise arrived al by^them whereunder the dues of the Bank have^been cleared and the Bank does not appear lo^have any further claim against the Company. Wat, however, remains is the fact that certain documents were alleged to have been^{created by} the appellant herein in order to avail of credit facilities^{beyondthe limitto which the Company} was entitled. The dispute involved herein^has overlones ofa civil dispute wilh certain criminal facets.^{The questionwhich is requiredlo be} answered in lhis case is whether lhe^power which independenlly lies wilh this Court^to quash the criminal proceedings pursudnt to^the compromise arrived at, should at all^be exercised?^"

¶72

"On an overall view of the facts as indicated hereinabove and keeping in mind^{the decision of} this Court in B.S.Joshi's³ case and^the compromise arrived at between the^Company and the Bank as also Clause 1l of the^consent terms filed in the suit tiled by^{the Banlg we are} satisfied thot this is a fit^{case where technicality} should not be allowed^{to stand} in^{the way in the} quashing of the criminal^proceedings, since,ⁱⁿ our view, the continuance of lhe^{sameafter the} compromise arrived at between^{the parties} would be a futile^{exercise. "}

¶73

The facts of the^{said case are squarely applicable to the facts of the}

¶74

present case.

¶75

But the learned^{SpecialPubic Prosecutorfor CBIcontendedthat the}

¶76

judgment in Nikhil Merchant v. Central Bureau of^{Investigationand} /

¶77

'2003^{(2) RCR (Crl.) 888}

i*i;}"

Dr"G 71_2019 ourt in

71_2019 ourt in Another (l sul^.a) rvas referred to a larger bench by the tlorr,ble ";::;i Gian Singh v' State of punjab and othersa along vuir.h two other cases in B.S.Joshi and )thers v. State of Haryana (3 supra) ard Manoj Sharma v. State and othr rss opining that the said three (03) decrs;rons are required to be re-considered' a in their opinion, something which corrl:l not be done directly also could not le clone indirectly" In their prima_f rr:ie opinion, the non_ compoundable < 'fences cannot be permitted to be corrl:,'u,ded by the court whether directry rr indirectry and the said three (03) der: r,ions didn,t appear to be correctly deci, ed.

¶82

17 .^'Ihe learne counsel fbr the petitioner filed a judgrrr:nt rn Gyan Singh v. state of Punjab and others6decided by the larger berr:;r orthree judges on 24.09.2012 rvhere n it was held that:

¶83

"54 Wherc .High Court quashes u crim.n,,i pr.o( eedtng having regard lo the [ac.t , t,,..t tltspulc b?nt)een the offender and t.ictim ht,t t t'eh sctll! although ofiences or(, ,,(tt c(,mlroundable, does so os in i!s oltintt,n. cohtinuation of criminal proc"rdings u,ii b, ,i,i, .,xertise. in futility and justice in the c,u.. 'tut Temdnds .ht^{an end and} thot the^{peace is} dispute between the^{restored;seruring} partitt ,1r,,,i. ',7ds -ofi,usrtce.^{being the ultimateguidittgfictt,.} \u-doubt, crimcs are dcts which have hurtnttt, '[ect on tht public and consist in.r"rg ir,'ir', ha.t seriously endongers ona thr"oi"n'r 7*i,i. 'ei.ng of society and it is not safe ro leare lkl rime-do.er only because he and-the vfuim hari :ule,,l the dispute umicably or that tl,e ria,r r a-t D?en paid compcnsation, yel certain crirn;s rt,e recn made compoundahle in !aw, with,t..

¶84

"2010 (r3) scR 1034 '2008 (4) RCR (Crt.) 27 6 2ot2 to scc 303

¶85

1.1

¶86

DLcRR, J c tc 617 2019

¶87

without permission of the Court. In respect of serious offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc; or other ofiences of menlal depravity under IPC or offences of moral turpitude under special statutes, like Prevention of Corruption Act or the offences commilted by public servants while working in that capacily, the settlement between olJender and victim can have no legal sanction at all. However, certain oflences which overwhelmingly and predominanlly bear civil flavour^{having arisen out of civil, mercantile,} commercial, financial, partnership or such like transactions or the olfences arising out of matrimony, particularly relating to dowry, etc. or the fdnily dispute, where the wrong is basically to victim and the offender and victim have settled all disputes between them amicably, irrespective of the fact that such offences have not been made compounddble, the High Court moy within the framework of its inherent power, quash lhe criminal proceeding or criminal complaint or F.I.R if it is satisfied thot on the face^{of such settlement, there is hardly any} likelihood of offender being convicted and by not quashing the criminal proceedings, justice shall be casualty and ends of justice shall be defeated. The above list is illustrative and not exhqustive. Each case will depend on its own facts^{and no hordand} fast^category can be prescribed.

¶88

18" The learned Special Public Prosecutor for CBI on the other hand relied

¶89

upon the^judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in State of Maharashtra through Central Bureau of Investigation v. Vikram Anantrai Doshi and OthersT wherein by considering the judgment in Gyan Singh v" State of Punjab and Others (6 supra) held that:

¶90

"availing of money from a nationdlized bank in the manner, as alleged by the investigating agency, vividly exposits fiscal impurity and, in a way, Jinancial fraud. The modus operandi as narrated in the charge-sheet cannot be put in the

¶91

? (2014) 15 SCC 29

¶92

/ /

¶93

¶94

:o t[)artmett of an individual or persoual )rc4!. 'i is ,t social wrong and it has immense socieh)t tnpoct. h is an accepted principle of hondling oi inance thot $)henever there is manipulatton ir)ri :lt,verly conceited conlrivance to avaii ol'tjtt,:r: :ind of bene.fits it cannot be regarded or" r, ,r,r.r, tuving ovenuhelmingly and predominantly ot' '!ril character. Thc ultimale victint i.s il), :ollective. lt creates a hazard in rhe finonci,ti ntcr,st o/ tltc society. The graviry of the o.[ft,t ca 'reoles a dent in the economic spine of tl,tt tation. The cleverness which has been skiltlulil 'ontriyed, if the allegations are truc, lns u erious consequence. A crime of this nalure, trt tu.r. view, would definitely fall in the categor.y o,t' 'lJbn,:es^{which lravel} far^{ahead of personat} ti. vivate wrottg. It has the potentiality to usher in con(tmic crisis. Its implications have its. ott,rt eriol$ness, for il credtes a concavity in the, oicn"nity that is cxpected in fintnc (t., ,ons,rction.s. It is not .utch a case whcrt ona c u. ,av the amounl and oblain a 'no du( et'tilicate" ond enjoy the benefit of quushing tr, he criminai proceeding on the hypisrasi.s'it ti,. 'othing more remoins to be done. The t,ollcctive nterest of v'hich the Court is the .guarcli t attnot be a silent or o mule spectator to alknt hc proceedings to be withdrau,n, or for fi,cn latter yield.' to the ingenuous dexlerity ctf the a:used persons to invokc the jurisdiciion nder Articlc 226 of the Consfifufion ,)t nder Section 482 of the Code and quash t\e t'oceeding. It is not legally permissible. T\e )ourt is expected to be on guard to thL,se kinls f^ariroit moves. The High Court, we humt lv tmind. .should have dealt with th< nnttir eepittg in nind that in these kind of litigatio,ts te accused when perceives a tiny giam o1 ucce.ss, reaclily invokes the inherent jurisdictirt,t .^{tr quashing} of lhe criminal proceeding. Titz lourt's principal duty, at that juncture, ihoul,t e to scan the entire facts to Jind out the thr.Lsl f allcgations ond the cntx of the se lentenl. It it e axperience of the Judge thal comes to his ai,i nd the said experience shoutd be used u, tt tre, caulion, circumspection and cottageo,ts ,,udence. As^we Jind in the case at lnrul tn,t 'arntd Single Judge has not tdken pains \t , :rulinize tle entire conspectus of .facts nt ,^tope, perspectirte and quashed the critnintl

¶95

DT.GRR)\ crlrc_611_2019'

¶96

¶97

DI.GRR.J cttc_677_2O79

¶98

t I

¶99

¶100

proceeding. The said quashment neither helps to secure the ends ofjustice nor does it prevent the abuse of the process of the Court nor can it be also said that qs lhere is d se lement no evidence will come on reiord and there will be remote chance of conviction. Such a finding in our^yiew would be dfficult to record. Be that as il may the fact remains that the sociol interest would be on peril and the prosecuting agency, in these circumstances, cannot be treated as an alien to the whole case. Ergo, we have no other option but to hold thdt the order of the High Court is wholly indefensible. "

¶101

In the light of the principles stated in the above cases, on considering the facts of this case as laid in the charge-sheet, A3 had conspired with late Sri.Goli Sridhar, Partner in lws.sunny Enclave Builders and Developers represented by the other partner, Smt. Goli.Sampuma, wo. late Sri.Goli Sridhar (A9)' and in pursuance of said conspiracy purchased a housing plot from 49 and entered into an agreement with 49 for construction of house on the said housing plot and fumished guaf,antee of 46 who was not at all related to A3 to secure the housing loan and 46 had submitted false Income Tax Retums and 43 obtained inflated valuation report from 42, panel Valuer ofSyndicate Bank and in conspiracy with Al, A2 and A9 availed housing loan of Rs.20,00,000/against the mortgaged property and put the bank into financial risk by not paying the EMIs and not contributing margin money and when the bank got the property revalued found that the value of the property was less than the outstanding balance and cheated the Bank by use of false documents as genuine. on considering these facts, the trial court rightly dismissed the petition filed by the petitioner observing that there was prima-facie material available to frame

¶102

¶103

DT.GRR; qtrc 677 2olg" charges against he petitioner-accused No.3 for the elL:ge,J oifences under Sections 120-B,, 20and47l of IpC.

¶104

This court loes not find any illegality or impropriel.y irL the observations of the trial court i t dismissing the petition filed by lhe rer.:r;ion petitioner for his discharge under S :ction 239 Cr.p.C.

¶105

In the resu t, the criminal Revision case is disrrisse<r confirming the order dated 21.02 2019 in cd.M.p.No.324 of z0l8 in c.c.l,.lo.i]0 of 2016 on the file of the III Add ionzLl Special Judge for CBI Cases, H1,r[,:rabad.

¶106

Miscellanec rs applications pending, if any, shall starr,.l cl,:sed.

¶107

Sd/. CF.^{/ENIKATESWARLU} DEFUTY |?EJaSTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER-L-*{1

¶108

¶109