K EMANUEL Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.58 of 2007 on the file of the Court of XI Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Secunderabad. I have heard Sri V.V.L.N.Sarma, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner-A1 and the learned Additional Public Prosecution representing the State. The brief facts of the case, as could be seen from the report lodged by the Chief Manager, Andhra Bank, Prakasham Nagar, Hyderabad, are the following.

(2.) ON the application made by the petitioner for grant of housing loan, the bank sanctioned an amount of Rs.9,70,000/- on 04.05.2002 for purchasing the house property bearing municipal No.32-194, Plot No.138 in Survey Nos.378, 379, 381 and 386 situated at Green Fields Colony, Khanajiguda, Alwal Municipality, Malkajgiri Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, from one Y.Anil Kumar. The said sale deed was registered on 06.05.2002. The housing loan was repayable in 180 equated monthly instalments. The petitioner-A1 paid instalments for a total sum of Rs.1,80,600/- and thereafter failed to pay the remaining instalments and an amount of Rs.10,60,107/- ultimately became due. It is stated that on enquiries made by the bank authorities, they came to know that the link documents of Mr. Y.Anil Kumar and Mrs. Y.Sujatha, who are predecessors in title of the property, were fabricated documents and that Mrs. Y.Sujatha, who originally possessed the property, mortgaged the said documents with Vasavi Cooperative Urban Bank Ltd., Malakpet Branch, for the loan limits availed by her husband, Mr. Y.anil Kumar. Thus, it came to be noticed by the bank that the above said persons, Mrs. Y.Sujatha and Mr. Y.Anil Kumar, availed loan from other financial institutions by mortgaging the documents of the same property.

(3.) PERUSAL of the report lodged by the Chief Manager, Andhra Bank, Prakasham Nagar Branch, on 02.09.2004 with Begumpet P.S., does not show that the petitioner-A1 with the connivance of the remaining accused obtained loan from Andhra Bank. It was clearly mentioned in the report that the enquiries made by the bank authorities revealed that Mrs. Y.Sujatha and Mr. Y.Anil Kumar obtained loan from other financial institutions/banks by mortgaging the documents of the same property. The charge sheet also does not disclose as to how the petitioner-A1 entered into conspiracy with the other accused. In my view, mere making a bald allegation that the petitioner-A1 by conspiring with A2 to A4 obtained loan is not sufficient. It must be clearly mentioned in the charge sheet that there was a dishonest intention on the part of the petitioner-A1 at the inception i.e., at the time of borrowing loan from the bank.