Telangana High Court
Chavaliramanjaneyulu vs Reserve Bank Of India on 10 June, 2025
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.V.SHRAVAN KUMAR
WRIT PETITION No.2811 of 2025
ORDER:
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri.Pratusha Boppana,
learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos.1 and 2, Sri.V.Nitesh, learned
counsel appearing for respondent No.3 and Sri.VVSSR Anjaneyulu, learned
counsel appearing for respondent Nos.4 and 5. With the consent of the
parties, the writ petition is being taken up for disposal.
2. This writ petition has been filed seeking the following prayer:-
"to declare the inaction of the respondents in rectifying the central
fraud registry despite the order dated 02.09.2024 vide CrLP 8011 of
2023 as illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional consequently direct the
Respondents to rectify the central fraud registry immediately by
deleting his name from the fraud list."
3. Brief facts as stated in this writ petition are that earlier in the year 2012,
the petitioner had availed a loan from the respondent Bank and by 13.06.2019,
the petitioner had paid the full loan amount and the respondent Bank had
also issued No Objection Certificate (NOC), confirming that the petitioner had
cleared all outstanding dues. Later, the respondent Bank filed complaint
against the petitioner, alleging that the petitioner had availed the aforesaid
loan by using fabricated documents and the said complained was registered
as Cr.No.156 of 2019 and the same was numbered as C.C.No.20347 of 2019 on
the file of XII ACMM at Nampally. Thereafter, petitioner filed Criminal
Petition No.8011 of 2023, seeking to quash the criminal proceeding and this
Court vide order dated 02.09.2024 passed the following order:-
"12.Reverting to the case on hand, though it is specifically
contended by the bank that the petitioner has obtained loan by
producing fabricated documents, it is noticed that for about two
months prior to the lodging of complaint, the petitioner/ accused has
repaid the entire loan amount and the bank has accepted the same
and even issued No Dues Certificate to him. In view thereof, nothing
survives in the case.
13. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of this case and the
judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Central Bureau
of Investigation Vs. Duncans Agro Industries Limited this Court
deems it appropriate to quash all the proceedings initiated against
the petitioner. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed, and the
proceedings initiated against the petitioner/ accused in
C.C.No.20347 of 2019 on the hle of the XII Additional Chief
Metropolitan Magistrate, at Nampally, are hereby quashed."
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner on
17.09.2024 made a representation and requested respondent Bank to correct
his cibil score and remove his name from the list of fraudulent. Thereafter, the
petitioner applied for new loan and the respondent Bank rejected the same
vide email dated 24.12.2024 with the following remark "Fraud Registry, poor
cibil score, continuous DPDs and no clean tracks in cibil". Hence, the
petitioner approached respondent No.5 and requested to rectify the records.
However, respondent No.5 informed that the rectification process would take
two years time. Aggrieved by the same, this writ petition is filed.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that inspite of the order
dated 02.09.2024 passed in Criminal Petition No.8011 of 2023, the respondent
authorities did not rectified the records and further submits that unless the
records are rectified, the petitioner would not be able to obtain loan and the
same would cause great hardship to the petitioner. Hence, pray this Court to
direct the respondent authorities to rectify the central fraud register in respect
to the petitioner.
6. Learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos.4 and 5 submits that
respondent Bank had already recommended the petitioner's name for
deletion from the Central Fraud Registry and further submits that the
respondent No.1 is the authority to process the same and pray this Court to
grant a period of three (3) months for processing the same.
7. At this stage, learned counsel appearing for petitioner submits that
appropriate orders be passed in this writ petition.
8. Recording the above submissions and without expressing any opinion
on the merits of the case, this writ petition is disposed of directing the
respondent authorities to consider the case of the petitioner for deleting his
name from the Central Fraud Registry and pass appropriate orders strictly in
accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period
of three (03) months from the date of receipt of copy of this order and
communicate the same to the petitioner.
9. Accordingly this writ petition is disposed of. Miscellaneous
applications, if any pending, shall stand closed. No order as to costs.
_________________________________
JUSTICE N.V.SHRAVAN KUMAR
Date: 10.06.2025
SU
