THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE JUVVADI SRIDEVI CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.3275 OF 2018

O R D E R

This Criminal Revision Case is filed by the petitioner-

accused No.13 seeking to set aside the impugned Order dated 15.11.2018 passed in CRL.M.P.No.955 of 2018 in C.C.No.4 of 2007 by learned III Additional Special Judge for Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) Cases, Hyderabad, wherein an application filed under Section 239 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short ‘Cr.P.C.’) seeking discharge of the petitioner from C.C.No.4 of 2007, was dismissed. The offences alleged against the petitioner-accused No.13 are under Sections 120-B, 420, 471 of the Indian Penal Code (for short ‘IPC’) read with Sections 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short ‘PC Act’).

02. Heard Sri T.Bala Mohan Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner-accused and Sri T. Srujan Kumar Reddy, learned Special Public Prosecutor for Central Bureau of Investigation. Perused the record.

03. The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner–

accused No.13 applied for a housing loan from Syndicate Bank, Borabanda Branch, Hyderabad, for the purpose of purchasing a Flat bearing No.202 in Sree Towers, Anjaneya Nagar, Kukatpally, Hyderabad. At the time of submitting the application, he furnished copies of income tax returns for the assessment years 2002 to 2005 in support of his income credentials, and also offered one surety for collateral security, who likewise submitted copies of income tax returns. The loan was sanctioned by the accused No.1 the Branch Manager of Syndicate Bank, Borabanda Branch, on the basis of the documents submitted by the petitioner–accused No.13. Out of the sanctioned amount, a sum of Rs.4.5 lakhs was released towards interior works, and thereafter the sale deed was executed. Subsequently, it was revealed that the petitioner- accused No.13 had submitted false income tax returns and that the surety had also furnished fabricated income tax returns. It is further alleged that the accused No.1, in collusion with other accused, sanctioned the loan in favour of the petitioner– accused No.13 and others despite the falsity of the documents, thereby cheated Syndicate Bank, Borabanda Branch.

04. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner-accused No.13 is nothing to do with the alleged offences. The learned trial Judge erred in dismissing the discharge petition filed by the petitioner. Basing on the statement of LW8 that the petitioner had submitted false income tax returns, the petitioner has been implicated in the present. But the statement of LW8 does not disclose the name of the petitioner-accused No.13. It is contended that no dishonest or fraudulent intention can be attributed to the petitioner-accused No.13. The petitioner-accused No.13 has repaid his loan amount and the bank issued no due certificate in favour of the petitioner-accused No.13. Learned counsel also submits that the proceedings against accused No.10 in C.C. No.4 of 2007 were quashed by this Court vide order dated 06.03.2025 in Criminal Petition No.12489 of 2011, on the ground of mistaken identity. With the above submissions, while praying for the quashment of criminal proceedings, he relied upon a decision of the Honourable Supreme Court in K.Bharthi Devi and others v. State of Telangana and others, MANU/SC/1083/2024 wherein it was held at Paragraph Nos.31, 34 & 35 that:

“31. It could thus be seen that this Court reiterates the position that the criminal cases having overwhelmingly and predominantly civil character, particularly those arising out of commercial transactions or arising out of matrimonial relationship or family disputes should be quashed when the parties have resolved their entire disputes among themselves.

34. The facts in the present case are similar to the facts in the case of Sadhu Ram Singla and others (supra) wherein a dispute between the borrower and the Bank was settled. In the present case also, undisputedly, the FIR and