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
SKS,J
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
SKS,J
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:
(2012) 10 Supreme Court Cases 155
SKS,J
"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
