HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN CRIMINAL PETITION No.847 OF 2020

ORDER

This Criminal Petition is filed under Section - 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, to quash the proceedings in C.C. No.1502 of 2016 on the file of XI Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Secunderabad.

2. The petitioner herein is arraigned as accused No.3 in the above C.C. The offences alleged against him are under Sections -

420 and 417 read with 34 of IPC.

3. Heard Mr. Tera Rajinikanth Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of respondent No.1. Despite service of notice, there was no representation on behalf of respondent No.2.

4. The allegations made in the charge sheet are as follows:

i) The petitioner herein - accused No.3 was the then Assistant General Manager, State Bank of India, PBD, Patny Centre Branch, Secunderabad at the relevant point of time.

Accused No.2 had a Locker bearing N-18 with Key No.10 at the said Branch.

ii) Accused No.1 is the allottee of the locker.

iii) She lodged a complaint with the said bank on

23.10.2010 stating that she lost the Key of the said Locker and requested the Bank to break open the Locker.

iv) The Bank Authorities had requested her to obtain a Certificate from the Police concerned.

v) Accordingly, accused No.1 brought the certificate from the Police.

vi) In fact, the locker was in the joint operation of accused No.1 and her husband, accused No.2. The same was converted into single name at her request.

vii) The CBI Officials visited the branch on 06.08.2010 for conducting inventory of the said locker along with accused No.1. The Bank Officials came to know that the CBI raided the house of Locker Hirer and seized the original locker key on 23.02.2011 along with many other documents. The Bank officials also came to know on 06.08.2010 that the CBI Officials have instructed the bank about stopping of operation of said locker which indirectly missed the attention of the Bank.

viii) The Branch Officials acted in good faith on the request of accused No.1 believing that her representation was true. But, accused No.1 intentionally suppressed the fact that the said locker key was seized by the CBI Authorities and she falsely represented to them that her key was lost.

ix) When the CBI Officials could not open the Locker with the original key, the bank officials explained the CBI officials about opening of the locker by breaking it when accused No.1 misrepresented them that the original locker key was lost.

x) Thus, according to the bank, accused No.1 misrepresented that she lost the locker key suppressing the factum of seizing the locker key by the CBI Officials, and thereby she has cheated the Bank.

5. The allegation against the petitioner herein is that he was the Assistant General Manager at that particular point of time and the Bank had received the register letter from the CBI Officials on 09.03.2010, the same was entered in the Inward Mail Register and was marked to accused No.4 by the petitioner herein. Both accused Nos.3 and 4, the Bank Officials, seem to be very lackadaisical and they have not responded to the situation properly giving room for suspicion on their part and they were in complicity with the offence. Thus, they are also implicated in the present case. Therefore, accused Nos.3 and 4 failed to stop the transaction of locker in connivance with accused Nos.1 and 2 and they have opened the locker at the instance of accused No.1 in spite of clear instructions from the CBI Officials. Thus, the petitioner herein in connivance with other accused has committed cheating.

6. Mr. Tera Rajinikanth Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, would submit that the petitioner herein was the Assistant General Manager at that particular point of time and he is not concerned in permitting accused No.1 to break open the subject locker, and he was only present there at the time of breaking open the subject locker. The letter dated 02.03.2010 was endorsed to the Branch M