IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HON’BLE SMT. JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA Date:22.01.2026 Between:

Munipalli Nirmala Krishna and 3 others …Petitioners/Accused Nos.2 to 5 And State of Telangana, Rep. by the Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana, Hyderabad and 2 others.

... Respondents

ORDER:

This Criminal Petition is filed seeking to quash the proceedings against the petitioners-accused Nos.2 to 5 in CC No.84 of 2024 on the file of VIII Additional Metropolitan Magistrate at Kukatpally, Cyberabad, for the offences under Sections 420, 406 and 120(B) IPC.

2. Heard Sri B.S. Prasad, learned Senior Counsel representing M/s. Pearl Law Associates, learned counsel on record for the petitioners, Sri Jithender Rao Veeramalla, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent No.1–State and Sri N.

Bhujang Rao, learned counsel for the respondent Nos.2 and 3. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the petitioners are innocent and are no way concerned with the difference in the parking space available in the apartments and that the daughter-in-law of the de facto complainant is the auction purchaser and that in an auction sale under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short SARFAESI Act’) and that the petitioners, who are the Bank Officials have no role to play with regard to the area of the property and the parking space provided thereunder and that it is all based on the documents that the proceedings would be conducted under the SARFAESI Act and thus, the petitioners cannot be roped in with such allegations. The respondent No.3, being the purchaser, she has to be aware and cautious to ascertain the area available and that he cannot throw blame on the petitioners herein and hence, he prayed to quash the proceedings against the petitioners. He relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Naresh Kumar v. State of Karnataka and another, 2024 INSC 196, Anukul Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh and another

4. Learned counsel for the respondent Nos.2 and 3 has submitted that the petitioners are the Bank Managers and the daughter-in-law of the de facto complainant has purchased the property including the car parking slot and has paid the amount, but the parking area is too less by 200 and odd sq. yds., and thus, suppression of fact is a criminal element and the bank managers who are in such a responsible position have suppressed the fact of non-existence of the parking space and mislead the respondent No.3 to buy the property. Therefore, the petitioners are not entitled to any relief in this quash petition and hence, prayed to dismiss the same.

5. Perused the record.

6. Admittedly, the property was purchased by the respondent No.3 - daughter-in-law of the de facto complainant in an auction sale under the SARFASEI Act and the petitioners are the Bank officials. It is further borne out by record that there is a suit pending against the petitioners herein filed by Smt. K.Samhitha-respondent No.3 who is the auction purchaser. The suit is filed for possession and

2 2025 SCC OnLine SC 2060

compensation against the Indian Bank and the relief claimed in the said suit is to pass a decree in favour of the plaintiff by providing the defendant to hand over the possession of the balance extent of the car parking of 210 sq. ft., as specified in the sale notice and sale certificate dated 05.01.2016 or alternatively to repay the amounts as per the ratio i.e. 210 sq. ft., x Rs.22,061/- which comes up to Rs.4,63,260/- towards the car parking for the balance extent of 210 sq.ft., further to direct the defendants to pay an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- towards compensation from preventing the plaintiff in enjoying the parking facility. Thus, the de facto complainant has already initiated civil proceedings and sought appropriate remedy under the same.

7. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that while a c