THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI Criminal Petition No.9099 of 2025

ORDER

This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNSS, 2023’) for quashment of proceedings in FIR No.33 of 2024 of EOW Cyberabad Police Station, Cyberabad against the petitioner/accused No.8.

2. I have heard Mr. Baglekar Akash Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.Jithender Rao Veeramalla, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, representing the respondent No.1-State.

3. The petitioner is arrayed as accused No.8 in Crime No.33 of 2024 registered for the offences under Sections 420, 409, 467, 468, 471, 477-A and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, ‘the IPC’).

4. Briefly stated, the prosecution alleges that the then Branch Manager of the State Bank of India, Sanathnagar/Accused No.1, orchestrated a large-scale loan fraud by approving loans based on forged documents. It is further alleged that overdraft accounts were illicitly created via the YONO digital banking platform, utilizing fabricated salary slips and identity documents, as well as unauthorized fund transfers.

With respect to the petitioner/Accused No.8, it is specifically alleged that, acting through Accused No.11, he received a sum of Rs.12,10,000/- on 29.06.2022 by submitting fake salary slips and a forged ID card. Out of this amount, Rs.2,20,000/- was purportedly transferred to a third party. It is also alleged that the petitioner's bank account was transferred to the Sanathnagar Branch specifically to facilitate the fraudulent transaction. On these grounds, the petitioner is accused of committing offences under Sections 420, 409, 467, 468, 471, 477-A, and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner had no direct involvement in the alleged fraud. It is contended that the petitioner had merely availed a loan, which was duly sanctioned by the bank after evaluating the necessary documentation. Moreover, the bank has already initiated civil proceedings to recover the defaulted amount, which are currently pending adjudication. The petitioner argues that the alleged submission of false and forged documents finds no reference in the civil suit, thereby raising the inference that the criminal complaint was filed with an ulterior motive, to coerce the petitioner into settling the civil dispute on the bank’s terms.

Counsel further submits that the petitioner is neither the author nor the fabricator of any of the impugned documents. Therefore, the essential ingredient required to attract the offence of forgery is absent as against the petitioner. A plain reading of the complaint, it is argued, fails to disclose the commission of any cognizable offence, be it cheating, forgery, or criminal conspiracy. Even on the prosecution’s own version, the forged documents were allegedly created by Accused No.11, not by the petitioner. Accordingly, invoking the aforementioned IPC sections against the petitioner, particularly Sections 467 and 468, is implausible. There is also no substantive material produced thus far to establish the petitioner’s involvement in any conspiracy.

In support of these arguments, reliance is placed on the following judicial precedents:

(a) Mohd. Akram Siddiqui v. State of Bihar, (2019) 13 SCC 350;

(b) State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335;

(c) B. Suresh Yadav v. Sharifa Bee, (2007) 13 SCC 107;

(d) Delhi Race Club (1940) Ltd. v. State of U.P., (2024) 10 SCC

690;

(e) Sheila Sebastian v. R. Jawaharaj, (2018) 7 SCC 581;

(f) Ram Prakash Chadha v. State of U.P., (2024) 10 SCC 651.

It is, therefore, submitted that the continuation of criminal proceedings against the petitioner constitutes an abuse of process and is liable to be quashed.

6. In response, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor argues that the ongoing investigation has revealed that the petitioner knowingly transferred his bank account and submitted forged salary slips and identity documents