Allowed

P. Balakistaiah v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC23 Feb 2023CRLP/9783/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court quashed criminal proceedings against a bank branch manager in two cases involving fake loan sanctions. The court found the petitioner was a defacto complainant, lacked material establishing his participation in fraud, and continuation of proceedings would be an abuse of process.

What did the court decide?

Criminal PW No.9783 and9850 gf2O18 were allowed and proceedings in C.C.Nos.4o7 and 427 of 2018 were quashed.

P. Balakistaiah Vs The State of Telangana — Cheating and Forgery | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYOCRABAD

¶2

THURSDAY, THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTIGE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA

¶5

Between:

¶6

P. Balakistaiah, s/o. Late p. Farappa, Aged about 5g years, occ. sr. Hyderabad, Manager, Head R/o. office, 1o-1'-g2ti1b,- retqngiri' Janaki^{.dHre".na -'rncar",} Bank, Ampro Nartakunta,corony, Lingojiguda, Saroornagar, Hyderibad

¶7

AND

¶8

..,petitioner/Accused

¶9

The state of rerangana, Represgltg.q !ylh" its pr.rbric_p^rosecutor, High 9oyrt,^{at H.yderaoa?} fnrousn^{Fd ritco;i;H_'rV.} cds, 6-o-,-'-', Hyderabad)

¶10

...Responde nUCom plaina nt

¶11

Petition under Section 4g2 of cr.p.c praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal petition, the High court may be pleased to quash c.c.No.407 ot201g on the file of the Court of the Xll Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, at Nampalty, Hyderabad.

¶12

(As per court order dated. 29.11.2022 in r.A.No. 1 of 2019 in crr.p.No.97g3 of 2018 C.C.No. and Court Name Amended)

¶13

l.A. NO: 1 OF 2018

¶14

Petition under Section 482 of Cr.p.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal petition, the High Court may be pleased to stay all further proceedings against the

¶15

petitioner/ Accused in C.C.No .4OZ of 2O1g on the file of the Court of the Xll Additional chief Metroporitan Magistrate, at Nampaily, Hyderabad, pending disposal of this criminar petition in the interest of justice.

¶16

(As per court order dated. 29.11.2022 in r.A.No. 1 of 2019 in crr.p.No.97g3 of 2018 C.C.No. and Court Name Amended)

¶17

This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of criminar petition and upon hearing the arguments of sri vikas Joshi, Advocate for the petitioner and the Additionat pubric Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent.

oF 2018

Between:

P. Barakistaiah, S/o. Late p. Barappa, Aged about 5g years, occ. sr. Manager, Helrd office, rglqngina' ci*iJ"n, Bank, Naflakunta, Hyderabad, R/o. to-l'-sz.t1ro,"-ianaii'-'Eiitrr", Ampro corony, Lingojiguda, Saroornagar,^-Hyderabad.

¶22

AND

¶23

...petitioner/Accused No.3

¶24

The State of Tetangana, Represented by the its public prosecutor, High Hyderabad)co u rt, at H vd eraoa? dri rodh ps WAo: ;; r"_' r V:'6"i d :;b;,"."',

¶25

-.. RespondenUComptaina nt

¶26

Petition under Section 4g2 of Cr.P.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of criminal petition, the High court may be preased to quash c.c.No.42 7 0f 201g on the fire of the court of the Xil Additionar chief Metroporitan Magistrate, at Nampary, Hyderabad, as against the petitioner/Accused No.3.

¶27

(As per court order dated. 29.11.2022 in r.A.No. 1 of 2019 in crr.p.No.9g50 of 2018 C.C.No. and Court Name Amended)

¶28

i I iI I t I l.r i

¶29

l.A. NO: 1 OF 2018

¶30

Petition under section 4g2 0f cr.p.c praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of criminat petition, the High court may be preased to stay a, further proceedings against the petitioner/ Accused No.3 in c.c.No.42 7 0t 2o1g on the fire of the court of the Xll Additionar chief Metroporitan Magistrate, at Nampaily, Hyderabad, pending disposar of this criminar petition in the interest of justice.

¶31

(As per court order dated- 29.11-2o22in r.A.No. 1 0f 201g in crr.p.No.gg50 of 2018 C.C.No. and Court Name Amended)

¶32

This^petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of criminar petition and upon hearing the arguments of sri vikas Joshi, Advocate for the petitioner and the Additional Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent.

¶33

The Court made the foilowing: GOMMON ORDER

¶34

-lu

¶35

HONBLE Dr. JUSTICE CHILI'AKUR SUITIALATHA NAL PETITIO os.97 of 2018

¶36

COMMON ORDER:

¶37

Heard Sri Vikas .Ioshi, learned counsel for the petitioner, as well as learned Additional Public Prosecutor who is representing the respondent-State.

¶38

The petitioner is arrayed as accused as well as prosecution witness. Seeking the Court to quash the proceedings that are pending against such a person in C.C.Nos.4OT of 2Ol8 and 427 of 2O1B before the Court of XII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Nampally, Hyderabad, these Criminal Petitions are filed.

¶39

Making his submission, learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitroner worked as Branch Manager at Telangana Grameena Bank, Lacminagar Branch, Saidabad, Hyderabad. Learned counsel submits that on noticing the fraud committed and the loans obtained by way of cheating the bank, as a responsible Manager, the petitioner Save complaints to Police and basing on his complaints, investigation started. Learned counsel further submits that that^police thereafter, took

¶40

¶41

DT,CSL, J CrlPNos.97B3 & 9Bs0 of2O1B

¶42

the prime accused into custody and recorded their

¶43

statements and basing on their statements, the petitioner is arrayed as one of the accused. Learned counsel further submits that the confessional statement of a co-accused cannot bind the other accused and indeed, the petitioner is innocent.

¶44

On the other hand, the submission of the learned Additional Public Prosecutor is that the Manager who succeeded the petitioner, when examined by police, gave statement to the effect that the petitioner did not follow the Circular instructions issued by the Bank and thereby, sanctioned loans.

¶45

The matrix of the casq, as could be perceived through the contents of the charge sheet in C.C.No.4OT of 2OL8, which is the subject matter in Criminal petition No.9783 of 20 18, is that accused Nos.l and 2 hatched a plan to secure loan from Telangana Grameena Bank, La:<rrinagar Branch, Saidabad, Hyderabad, by producing fraud./ fabricated documents. As per their plan, they met the petitioner, who is the Branch Manager, and offered to pay 2O%o of the sanctioned amount if he co-operates. The

¶46

I . ---",, "e'"'8****-*

¶47

-t i

¶48

¶49

Dr.CSL, J CrlPNos.9783 & 98s0 of201B

¶50

petitioner accepted the offer. As per the plan, accused No.1 opened a Savings Bank Account and thereafter, accused Nos.1 and 2 prepared fake/fabricated agreement of sale and got the loan sanctioned. After obtaining loan, accused No.1 committed default in repayment of loan instalment. The petitioner pressurized accused No.l to repay the loan amount and therefore, he repaid the total loan amount.

¶51

The case facts, as could be perceived through the contents of the charge sheet in C.C.No.427 of 2018, which is the subject matter in Criminal Petition No.985O of 2018, are that accused No.1 along with accused Nos.2 and 4 approached the petitioner with a request to take over the existing Housing Loan at Punjab and Sind Bank, Hyderabad and requested for top up loan for an amount of Rupees Twenty lakhs. However, the petitioner refused. On that, accused Nos.L,2 and 4 hatched a plan to obtain loan from Telangana Grameena Bank, Laxminagar Branch, Saidabad, Hyderabad, by suppressing the fact of existence of mortgage at Punjab and Sinh Bank by fabricating the documents. They offered to p(y_ the

¶52

*-#-'-"

¶53

¶54

Dr.CSL, J CrlPNos.9783 & 985O of2018

¶55

petitioner 2Oo/o of the sanctioned amount in case he co_ operates. The petitioner accepted the offer. on that, the loan was got sanctioned basing on fake documents. 7 ' It is not in dispute that in both the cases, the defacto complainant is the petitioner.

¶56

B' Learned Additionar public prosecutor did not bring anything to the notice of this court except the alreged statement that was given by sri K.pratap Reddy, Branch Manager, Teranga.na Grameena Bank, Laxminagar Branch, saidabad, Hyderabad, that the petitioner violated the circular instructions issued by the Head oflice and was not diligent while sanctioning the roan. In case, during investigation, the defacto complainant is found to be one of the conspirators, the said. person undoubtedry can be arrayed as accused. However, it is not known why the prosecuting agency cited the said person who is arrayed as accused as one of the witnesses of the prosecution. That apart, except the statement that the petitioner viorated the circular instructions and was not diligent wh,e sanctioning the loan, there is no material on record to show the participa***:tllS

¶57

¶58

¶59

Dr.CSL, J CrlPNos.9783 & 9850 of2O18

¶60

petitioner in the alleged fabrication and creation of documents. Thus, having found absence of convincing material establishing prima facie case against the petitioner, this Court is of the view that continuation of proceedings against the petitioner would amount to abuse of process of law. Therefore, this Court considers it desirable to quash the proceedings as prayed for.

¶61

g. Resultantly, both the Criminal Petitions are allowed. The proceedings that are pending against the petitioner in C.C.Nos.407 of 2O18 and 427 of 2018 before the Court of XII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate,

¶62

Nampally, Hyderabad, are hereby quashed.

¶63

As a sequel, pending s- if

¶64

any, shall stand closed.

¶65

\ 1

¶66

SD/. C. PRAVEEN KUMAR ASSTSTANT REGISTR^R ,/

/TRUE COPY'/

/- z'"

SECT tor{dFFrcER

To,

The Xll Additional Chief Metropolitan [Vlagistrate, at Nampally, Hyderabad.

¶72

Two CCs to the Additional Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana, at Hyderabad [OUT]

¶73

One CC to Sri Vikas Joshi, Advocate [OPUC]

¶74

Two CD Copies 4--MMK

HIGH COURT

CSL, J

DATED:2310212023

COMMON ORDER

CRLP.Nos.9783 and 9850 of 2018

¶81

t p.E 5'147 .l
('j.
a- t"i
c
,l
,:) 2 0 Hr, 2$23
I
x..

¶82

ALLOWING BOTH THE CRIMINAL PETITION'S

¶83

^v>

¶84

P. Balakistaiah v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P. Balakistaiah v. The State of Telangana

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

Sukka Srinivas Rao Vs The State of Telangana

Gadeveni Ganesh Vs The State of Telangana

Md. Farjana Vs The State of Telangana

M/s.Kamakshi Steels (P) Ltd. Vs The State of Telangana

Mr. Ranga Reddy Vs The State of Telangana

P.Nageswar Rao Vs State of Telangana