RAVINDER Vs. STATE OF A P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Registration of a crime at Begumpet Police Station, Hyderabad, for the offences punishable under sections 120-B, 403 and 420 IPC is subject matter of challenge in the present applications filed under section 482 Cr.P.C.,

(2.) The facts in issue are as under: A private complaint filed under section 200 Cr.P.C., was referred to the police under section 156(3) Cr.P.C., which led to registration of the above crime. Crl.P.No.1720/2014 is filed by A-2 to 4 who are the Managing Director and CEO of ICICI Bank Ltd., Senior General Manager-Head South Zone of ICICI Bank Ltd., and General Manager- Home and Vehicle Loans of ICICI Bank Ltd., respectively. While Crl.P.No.1719/2014 is filed by A-5 who is the Branch Manager of Begumpet Branch of ICICI Bank Ltd.,

(3.) The allegations in the report refer to two transactions in respect of two properties said to have been purchased by the second respondent herein. Insofar as first property which was mortgaged with ICICI Bank Ltd., under home loan bearing account No.NWHYD00000726979 is concerned, there is no dispute as the entire sale consideration of Rs.7,85,00,000/- was paid and the original title deed was released in favour of the second respondent. The entire dispute is with regard to the second property situated in S.No.403/1 (old) 120 (new) at Shaikpet village and S.No.102/1 of Hakeempet village, Road No.37, Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad, admeasuring 1564 sq.yards belonging to one T. Venkatram Reddy. The averments in the report would show that during the course of sale negotiations, T. Venkatram Reddy brought to the notice of the second respondent that the said property which he intends to purchase was mortgaged with ICICI Bank Ltd., under home loan Account No.NHHYD00000726978. As the second respondent was interested in purchasing the same, though it was mortgaged, he along with his wife D.Sucharitha Reddy approached A-4 and A-5 for the purpose of verifying the details of the home loan account. A-5 in consultation with A-2 to A-4 is alleged to have informed the second respondent that if the amount due under the home loan account is repaid the bank would not have any objection in transferring the property to the second respondent or his wife by T. Venkatram Reddy and that the original document shall also be released. Pursuant thereto, T.Venkatram Reddy addressed a letter dt. 10-1-2013 to the ICICI Bank Ltd., intending to pre-close the home loan account by paying Rs.4,95,89,791/- subject to condition that ICICI Bank (A-1) gives no objection certificate along with the original property documents. The said letter was acknowledged by A-5 with the following endorsement: We will release the original land papers and no objection certificate after the payment is received for the home loan. Acting on the representation made by A-5, the second respondent paid total sale consideration of Rs.7,72,60,862/-. Subsequent thereto a registered sale deed vide document No.1107dt. 7-3-2013 was also executed by T. Venkatram Reddy in favour of the minor son of the second respondent. It is stated that the sale consideration was paid by the second respondent directly to the accused bank. The accused Bank acknowledged the payment, closed the loan account and also communicated the same through an e-mail to T.Venkatram Reddy on 7-3-2013. In spite of several requests made by the second respondent to handover the original documents relating to the said property, the accused failed to return the same. It is alleged that the second respondent acted upon the assurance and representation made by the accused and their conduct in not returning the original document in spite of receiving the entire loan amount would disclose their dishonest intention to cheat the second respondent. Basing on these allegations, a private complaint was filed which was referred to the police under section 156(3) Cr.P.C., On reference, a case in Cr.No.411/2013 of Begumpet Police Station was registered for the offences punishable under section 120-B, 403 and 420 IPC.