B KISHAN Vs. STATION HOUSE OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner who was a Branch Manager, working in Kallur Branch of State Bank of India, Anantapur District, filed the present Criminal Petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., seeking quashing of investigation in Cr. No. 117/2011 of Garladinne Police Station, which was registered against him for an offence punishable under Section 409 IPC. The second respondent herein lodged a report alleging that he borrowed an amount of Rs. 6,50,000/- from State Bank of India, Kallur Branch on 4-7-2002 and purchased Ac. 19-05 cents of land in S. No. 78/1A consisting of plot Nos. 17, 18 and 19 situated in Anantapur town. After registration of the land, the second respondent mortgaged the said land with the Bank. After repaying the entire loan in the month of August 2011, the second respondent requested the accused/Branch Manager to return the documents deposited by him. The Branch Manager promised to return the same within a period of 2 or 3 days but failed to do so stating that he has to trace the documents from his branch files. On 13-8-2011, the accused/Branch Manager sent some documents to the house of the second respondent through one of his subordinate officer by name Sai. On verification of the returned documents, the second respondent noticed that the principal document on which the mortgage is constituted and loan granted is not enlisted in the memo. The second respondent after making an endorsement to that effect, immediately contacted the Branch Manager on telephone. He promised him that he will search and trace the document and hand over the same within 2 or 3 days. In spite of repeated requests, there is no proper response from the Branch Manager. On the other hand, he is alleged to have given evasive answers, postponing return of the document. As the value of the property is worth Rs. 1.5 crore, the respondent No. 2 apprehends that the same was misappropriated by the petitioner and hence, the present report came to be lodged.

(2.) Heard Sri T. Bali Reddy, the learned Senior Counsel representing Sri O. Udaya Kumar, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner; Sri P. Veera Reddy, the learned counsel for the second respondent, and the learned Public Prosecutor for the first respondent-State

(3.) The learned Senior Counsel would submit that there is no material placed before the court to show that the second respondent has presented the said document bearing No. 5474/2002 dt. 4-7-2002 while seeking loan. He would further submit that if really the said document is in existence, he could have secured a duplicate copy of the said document from the registration authorities and take appropriate steps to see that the same is not misused in stead of pursuing the criminal proceedings. The learned Senior Counsel vehemently submits that question of returning a document which is not in existence would not arise. In support of his plea, he took me through certain documents which are alleged to have been signed by the second respondent at the time of taking loan, which according to him do not reflect deposit of said document while obtaining loan.