Telangana High Court
Melkaveri Narayana Swamy Venkatesh vs The State Through Cbi/Spe on 23 April, 2024
THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA
CRIMINAL PETITION No.6340 of 2023
ORDER:
This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short 'Cr.P.C.') by the petitioner, who is arrayed as accused No.3, seeking to quash the proceedings against him in C.C.No.400004 of 2007 on the file of III Additional Special Judge for CBI at Hyderabad, for the alleged offences punishable under Section 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and Sections 120-B, 420 of IPC.
2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner being the then Assistant Manager of the Syndicate Bank, Borbanda, processed one personal loan to accused No.8, housing loans to accused Nos.11, 12 and 13, respectively, without verifying the documents properly. As per the averments of the charge sheet, the petitioner processed sanctioning of housing loan of Rs.8,50,000/- to accused No.11; Rs.8,00,000/- to accused No.12; Rs.4,05,000/- to accused No.13 and personal loan of Rs.2,00,000/- to accused No.8 by accepting false income tax returns and valuation reports without verifying the genuineness of their credit worthiness. Hence, a case was registered vide Crime No.36 of 2004 and after completion of investigation charge 2 SKS,J Crl.P.No.6340 of 2023 sheet was filed vide C.C.No. 400004 of 2007 dated 17.05.2007 on the file of III Additional Special Judge for CBI, Hyderabad.
3. Heard Sri T. Chaitanya Kiran, learned Counsel for the Petitioner and Sri Srinivas Kaapatia, learned Special Public Prosecutor for respondent - CBI.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that only after receipt of request letters from accused Nos.11, 12 and 13 disclosing progress of work in respect of mortgaged property, the amounts were disbursed considering the income tax returns, agreement of sale and registered sale deed documents as per their eligibility by strictly following rules and regulations. He further submitted that even after lapse of 19 years, the case is still at the stage of consideration of the charge sheet before the trial Court and the petitioner retired from service on 30.04.2015 on attaining the age of superannuation. He further submitted that since there is no mens rea to constitute the alleged offence and since the petitioner performed his duty strictly following rules and regulations of the bank, the proceedings in the said case against the petitioner are liable to be quashed.
5. On the other hand, learned Special Public Prosecutor for respondent-CBI opposed the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner stating that the petitioner accepted the false 3 SKS,J Crl.P.No.6340 of 2023 income tax returns and valuation reports while disbursing the sanctioned loan amount, as such, he is the person who involved in the manipulation of the said documents. Hence, prayed the Court to dismiss the Criminal Petition.
6. In view of the rival submission by both the counsel, this Court has perused the record and found that the allegations against the petitioner are serious in nature and there are documents filed by the CBI to prove the alleged offences. Moreover, it is alleged that the petitioner failed to notice the deviations and credentials of the borrowers i.e., accused Nos.11, 12 and 13 and also guarantors i.e., accused Nos.15 and 16 while processing the loan applications.
7. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the considered opinion that at this stage it cannot be said that there is no mens rea on the part of the petitioner/accused No.3 without going into the trial and also prima facie it cannot be said that it is abuse of process of law.
8. At this stage, it is pertinent to note the Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Surendra Kori 1, wherein in paragraph No.14 it is held as follows:
1
(2012) 10 Supreme Court Cases 155 4 SKS,J Crl.P.No.6340 of 2023 "The High Court in exercise of its powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. does not function as a Court of appeal or revision.
This Court has, in several judgments, held that the inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C., though wide, has to be used sparingly, carefully and with caution. The High Court, under Section 482 Cr.P.C., should normally refrain from giving a prima facie decision in a case where the entire facts are incomplete and hazy, more so when the evidence has not been collected and produced before the Court and the issues involved, whether factual or legal, are of wide magnitude and cannot be seen in their true perspective without sufficient material."
9. In view of the above discussion as well as the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Surendra Kori (Supra), this Court does not find any merit in the criminal petition to quash the proceedings against the petitioner and the same is liable to be dismissed.
10. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is dismissed. As the case is of the year 2007, the trial Court is directed to dispose of the case as expeditiously as possible duly affording opportunity to the parties.
Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall also stand closed.
_______________ K. SUJANA, J Date: 23.04.2024 gms