B. NAGESHWARA RAO Vs. STATE OF TELANGANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Criminal Petition, under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, is filed by the petitioner/A.4, seeking to quash the proceedings against him in C.C.No.16 of 2006 on the file of the II Additional Special Judge for CBI Cases, Visakhapatnam.

(2.) Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner/A.4, the learned Special Public Prosecutor for CBI Cases representing the respondent-State and perused the record.

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner/A.4 would submit that the CBI filed charge-sheet against the petitioner/A.4 and the other accused in this case for the offences punishable under Sections 120-B read with 420, 468, 471 of I.P.C. and Sections 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, alleging that the petitioner/A.4 and the other five accused entered into a criminal conspiracy and that the petitioner/A.4, by abusing his official position as public servant, committed criminal misconduct and caused wrongful loss to the bank and wrongful gain to A.5A.6 and that A.5A.6 have boosted up the value of the property offered by them as collateral security for sanction and disbursement of loan of Rs. 7,00,000.00 by the State Bank of Hyderabad, Kothapeta Branch, Guntur, to be utilised for developing their business. The allegation that the petitioner/A.4 recommended for sanction of credit facility of Rs. 7.00 lakhs in favour of A.5A.6 by showing inflated values of the properties offered as collateral securities with a fraudulent and dishonest intention of causing wrongful loss to the bank is absolutely false. The complaint lodged by the complainant/manager does not disclose any accusations against the petitioner/A.4 constituting the alleged offences. The petitioner/A.4 is only a Field Officer of the bank and in any event, the report, dated 22.11.2000, submitted by him cannot be treated as a final certificate to sanction and disburse loan in favour of A.5 and A.6. The responsibility of the petitioner/A.4 is only to inspect the properties, measure the same and submit his report as per the fair market value thereof and hence, he cannot be held responsible for any defect in the title deeds of the said properties. None of the witnesses examined in this case stated anything against the petitioner/A.4 before the Investigating Officer. A.5A.6 re-paid the entire amount due to the bank by way of 'One Time Settlement'. The bank authorities accepted the same and issued letter No.F.SAMB/SMK/12, dated 09.04.2007, to that effect. Since the entire loan amount has been re-paid by A.5A.6, the question of the petitioner/A.4 cheating the bank does not arise. Since A.5A.6 compromised the matter with the bank authorities and when the bank authorities accepted the same, continuation of proceedings against the petitioner/A.4 amounts to abuse of process of law and ultimately prayed to quash the proceedings against the petitioner/A.4. It is also contended that the value of the property offered as security is more than the book value and the same was adequate to obtain the subject loan. In support of his contentions, the learned counsel relied on two decisions of the Apex Court in Central Bureau of Investigation Vs. Sadhu Ram Singla AIR 2017 Supreme Court 1312 and Nikhil Merchant Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and another 2009 (1) ALT (Crl.) 77 (SC) and a decision of this Court in V.Rajagopala Rao and others Vs. The State of Telangana Decided by this Court, vide order, dated 16.02016 passed in Crl.P.No.11049 of 2015.