THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA

CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.303 of 2024

ORAL ORDER:

This Criminal Revision case is filed challenging the

order dated 04.01.2024 passed in Crl.M.P.No.1106 of 2023 in C.C.No.6 of 2002 by the learned I Additional Metropolitan

Sessions Judge, Hyderabad.

2. The brief facts of the case are that, based on a report lodged by the Principal Secretary, Government of Andhra Pradesh, along with the Registrar of Co-operative Societies on 25.02.2002, Crime No.6 of 2002 was registered against the management of The Charminar Co-operative Urban Bank Ltd., Hyderabad, its officials, and certain borrowers for misappropriation of bank funds through fictitious loans. The allegation against the petitioner/accused No.93 was that, in conspiracy with other accused, he executed a partnership deed in the name of M/s. Cyber City Computers with a person impersonating late C. Janardhan Rao, stood as co- applicant and guarantor for the loan obtained on the basis of a forged equitable mortgage deed, and thereby cheated

the bank. The trial Court, after considering the material on record and the submissions of both sides, held that there was sufficient prima facie material to frame charges against the petitioner for the offences under Sections 409, 420, and 120-B IPC read with Section 5 of the A.P. Protection of Depositors of Financial Establishments Act, 1999, and accordingly dismissed the discharge petition filed by the petitioner/accused No.93. Aggrieved thereby, the present criminal revision case is filed.

3. Heard Smt. L. Pranathi Reddy, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner as well as Sri D. Arun Kumar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the respondent - State.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the charge sheet did not disclose the commission of any cognizable offence and that the essential ingredients of Sections 409, 419, 420, and 120-B IPC read with Section 5 of the A.P. Protection of Depositors of Financial Establishments Act, 1999, were not made out against the petitioner. He further submitted that there was no specific entrustment or fraudulent intent attributed to the petitioner, who was only a co-applicant and guarantor with no direct role in the bank’s affairs. He contended that the main borrowers, accused Nos.89 and 90, had repaid the entire loan amount of Rs.1,30,13,139/- under a one-time settlement, for which the bank issued a No Dues Certificate, and that the High Court had already quashed the proceedings against the principal borrowers. Therefore, continuation of prosecution against the petitioner was unwarranted and amounted to abuse of process of law and prayed the Court to set aside the order of the trial Court by allowing this criminal revision case.

5. On the other hand, learned Additional Public Prosecutor opposed the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, stating that the trial Court had already considered all these aspects while dismissing the discharge petition, and that mere payment of the loan amount by the principal borrower is not a valid ground for discharge. He further submitted that there are no sufficient grounds to allow the petition, and the same is liable to be dismissed.

6. In the light of the submissions made by both the learned counsel and upon a perusal of the material available on record, it appears that the petitioner was arrayed as accused No.93, and the allegation against him was that accused Nos.92 and 93 stood as guarantors for the loan obtained by Accused No.90, wherein Accused No.91 had impersonated another person, and the petitioner knowingly signed the said documents. However, the record shows that the principal borrower had already repaid the entire loan amount, and the bank, by its letter dated 28.11.2007, informed the prosecuting agency that accused Nos.89 and 90 had paid the total amount as per the modified one-time settlement scheme. Subsequently, on 09.09.2010, a No Dues Certificate was issued to