Telangana High Court
G. Sridhar vs The State Of Telangana on 11 April, 2025
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
CRIMINAL PETITION No.1470 OF 2019
JUDGMENT:
1. Petitioner/A1 has filed this petition to quash the criminal
proceedings against him in C.C.No.426 of 2016 on the file of XII
Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad for the offence
under Sections 406, 420, and 468 IPC r/w 34 IPC.
2. According to the complaint filed by the Chief Manager of State
Bank of Hyderabad, who was examined as L.W.1, A1 and A2
approached the Bank for a loan. The sale deeds of the property
meant for security towards loan were fabricated. The documents,
i.e., five sale deeds were in respect of 10 plots, which was assigned
land. The five documents were brought into existence with the help
of A3, who was the Sarpanch of Taramatipet village. The five sale
deeds as listed in the charge sheet, wherein this petitioner is the
purchaser, pertain to ceiling surplus lands, which are prohibited by
the Government from being sold or mortgaged. Having knowledge
about the assigned lands, the sale deeds were deliberately brought
into existence by A1 and A2, with the help of A3, and they
approached the Bank for a loan of Rs.32.00 lakhs. The Bank
Officials/A6 and A7, and the panel Advocate/A5 helped A1 and A2
in obtaining the loan, even though A5 to A7 had knowledge that the
land in question was assigned land.
3. A1 and A2 did not pay even one installment. The Bank
proceeded against A1 and A2, and it was found that the land was
assigned land. On the basis of transactions, the bank found that
the accused A1 to A8, had colluded to cause wrongful loss to the
Bank and wrongful gain to this petitioner and others.
4. Sri Vedula Venkata Ramana, the learned Senior Counsel
appearing for the petitioner would submit that the transaction is
purely a commercial Bank transaction and the loan was advanced
after the Bank officials had inspected the land and gave opinion
about the land that was mortgaged. The Bank can resort to recovery
of the amount following due process. The petitioner was not aware
that the land was assigned land and he had purchased the land
from other buyers. It cannot be said that the petitioner had
deliberately indulged in cheating the Bank by fabricating the sale
deeds.
5. On the other hand, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor
submits that A1 took loan by producing fake documents. The Bank
was subjected to heavy loss on account of the illegal acts of this
petitioner and other accused, who have entered into a criminal
conspiracy to cheat the Bank.
6. The transaction, i.e., the purchase of landed property of 10
plots through five sale deeds by A1 was in the year 2005. After
allegedly purchasing the said property, which is assigned land,
according to the investigation, A1 approached the Bank for a loan.
The land, admittedly, was allotted by the Government to landless
poor farmers, who were entitled. Since it is assigned land, the
question of transfer of the said land in any manner whatsoever is
prohibited.
7. According to the investigation, having obtained the loan, not a
single installment was paid to repay the loan. It can be safely
inferred from the conduct of this petitioner, who did not pay even a
single loan installment after taking the loan, that this petitioner
approached the Bank with a fraudulent intent to defraud the Bank.
In the process of cheating the Bank, A1 has registered the assigned
land in his name and managed the Bank officials (A6 and A7) and
also the panel advocate (A5) to suppress the fact that the land was
assigned land.
8. Not a single EMI of the loan was paid even after the
registration of the crime or when the Bank issued notices for
repayment. The said conduct in itself would reflect that the
petitioner had knowledge of the assigned lands and deliberately
purchased the said land in collusion with the Sarpanch/A3, who is
his cousin, and then obtained a loan.
9. The case is one of circumstantial evidence. The prosecution
should have the opportunity to adduce evidence on the basis of
documents collected during the investigation. The events that
transpired in the case are on record in the form of documents, right
from the purchase of plots, the execution of loan documents, and
the failure to pay even a single installment towards repayment. It is
for the trial Court to draw inferences on the basis of the
documentary and oral evidence adduced by prosecution during
trial.
10. There are absolutely no grounds to quash the proceedings
against this petitioner.
11. Accordingly, Criminal Petition is dismissed. Consequently,
miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.
__________________
K.SURENDER, J
Date: 11.04.2025
kvs
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
CRIMINAL PETITION No.1470 of 2019
Date: 11.04.2025
kvs
