IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA CRIMINAL PETITION No.4570 OF 2025 DATE : 25.03.2026 Between :

J.Srinivas & another … Petitioners/A.6 & A.8 And State of Telangana, Rep., by its Special Public Prosecutor, C.B.I., Hyderabad& another … Respondents : O R D E R:

This petition is filed under Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 praying this Court to quash the proceedings against the petitioners in C.C.No.16 of 2014 on the file of Principal Special Sessions Judge for CBI Cases, Hyderabad, wherein the alleged offences against the petitioners are under Sections 120-B r/w.420, 409, 467, 467 r/w.472, 468 r/w.471 of Indian Penal Code and under Section 13 (2) r/w.13 (1) (d) and substantive offences.

2. The prosecution case is that the 2nd respondent lodged a complaint, based on which the CBI, Economic Offences Wing, registered FIR No.14(E)/2012 alleging that A.1 to A.8 entered into a criminal conspiracy to defraud Indian Bank, Osmangunj Branch, Hyderabad. A.1, K. Suresh Kumar, initially availed an Open Cash Credit (OCC) limit of Rs.15 lakh in September 2001 in the name of M/s. Sirish Traders, which was later renamed as M/s. PDM Industries. The OCC limits were periodically enhanced, and ultimately, on 06.02.2009, the limit was increased to Rs.450 lakh. It is further alleged that the Bank sanctioned multiple loans, including two term loans totaling Rs.2.25 crore to M/s. P.S. Educational Society, a mortgage/term loan of Rs.50 lakh to M/s. Sri Sakthi Constructions and M/s. Suryodaya Constructions, and a housing loan of Rs.40 lakh to K. Suresh Kumar and K. Rajendra Kumar. These loans were secured by mortgaging properties belonging to K. Rajendra Kumar, Smt. K. Bharathi Devi, K. Suresh Kumar, and Smt. K. Pallavi, along with personal guarantees from K. Madhu, Smt. K. Sarita Rani, and J. Krishna. As the borrowers failed to repay the dues, the accounts were classified as Non-Performing Assets (NPA) on 31.03.2010, with an outstanding amount of Rs.7.18 crore as on 04.09.2010.

3. The prosecution further alleges that certain bank officials, namely A.6 to A.8, who were working as Branch Manager/Chief Manager, Senior Manager, and Assistant Manager at the relevant time, conspired with A.1 to A.5. It is alleged that the borrowers submitted forged title deeds as genuine, and despite knowing the same, A.6 and A.7 recommended the loan proposals and failed to comply with sanction conditions before disbursement, thereby acting with criminal intent. It is further alleged that in August 2002, A.1 applied for enhancement of the OCC limit from Rs.15 lakh to Rs.50 lakh under Trade Finance “Trade Well”. Along with the application, financial statements, asset and liability statements, a legal opinion, and a valuation report were submitted. However, the application was processed without independently obtaining legal opinion from the panel advocate and without verifying the genuineness of the title deeds. Based on the recommendation of A.7 and the Credit Department’s note, the Circle Office sanctioned an enhanced limit of Rs.40 lakh on 22.08.2002. On the basis of the complaint and subsequent investigation, it is alleged that A.1 to A.8, in furtherance of their conspiracy, committed offences of cheating, forgery, use of forged documents, criminal breach of trust, and criminal misconduct, thereby causing wrongful loss of Rs.7,17,96,555/- to the Bank. Accordingly, the case was registered against all the accused for the said offences.

4. Heard Sri Rajasripathi Rao, learned Senior counsel appearing for Sri G.Aditya Goud, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri T.Srujan Kumar Reddy, learned Special Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent No.1 and Sri Hemanth Kumar Vemuri, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2. 5. The learned Senior counsel for the petitioners contended that the charges framed by the trial Court do not contain any specific allegations against A.6 and A.8. Charge No.1 pert