Back
2026 Supreme(Telangana) 316
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
N. TUKARAMJI, J.
Andhra Bank, Banjara Hills Branch, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad, Represented by its Branch Manager and another - Petitioners
Versus
The State of Telangana, Represented by its Secretary, Home Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad and others – Respondents
Writ Petition No. 36434 of 2018
Decided On : 30-04-2026
Advocate Appeared:
Petitioner Counsel: M. Srikanth Reddy
Respondent Counsel: D. Pradeep (Asst. Govt. Pleader for Home (TG)); ; S. Chakrapani
The existence of a civil dispute does not bar criminal prosecution if the FIR discloses a cognizable offence, and statutory immunity for acts done in good faith does not protect officials from allegations of forgery or fabrication of documents.
Headnote:The petition was filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking to quash criminal proceedings initiated via FIRs alleging fabrication and manipulation of documents. The case involves the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002, specifically Section 32. The petitioner bank had initiated recovery proceedings against a borrower, which led to allegations that bank officials tampered with loan undertakings. The court found that the FIRs disclosed prima facie cognizable offences of forgery and cheating, supported by forensic reports. The primary issues were whether the existence of a civil dispute and the pendency of proceedings before the Debt Recovery Tribunal bar criminal prosecution, and whether statutory immunity under Section 32 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002, protects officials from allegations of forgery. The court reasoned that civil and criminal proceedings operate in distinct spheres and that statutory protection for acts done in "good faith" does not extend to deliberate fabrication or tampering of documents. Accordingly, the Writ Petition seeking quashment of FIR Nos. 514 of 2011 and 967 of 2012 is dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. background of loan default and subsequent registration of firs for document fabrication. (Para 1 , 2) |
ORDER :
N. TUKARAMJI, J.
This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief:
“…to issue a Writ, order or direction more particularly a Writ in the nature of Mandamus declaring the prosecution in FIR No. 514/2011 and FIR No. 967/2012 before the 2nd Respondent as illegal, arbitrary, abuse of due process of law and violative of Articles 14, 19(1)g of the Constitution of India and also Section 32 of Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 and to pass such other order or orders…”
2. I have heard Mr. M. Srikanth Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner; Mr. D. Pradeep, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home, appearing on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and Mr. S. Chakrapani, learned counsel for respondent Nos.3 to 5.
3.1. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the petitioner-Bank sanctioned a term loan of Rs. 8.00 crores to Respondent No. 3-Firm on 26.03.2005. The said loan was secured by way of an equitable mortgage over immovable property. Upon default committed by the borrower in repayment of the loan, the account was classified as a stressed asset and transferred to the Stressed Assets Recovery Management (SRAM) Branch. Consequently, recovery proceedings were initiated under the provisions of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short, “SARFAESI Act, 2002”).
3.2. Aggrieved by the measures initiated under the SARFAESI Act, Respondent Nos. 3 to 5 approached the Debt Recovery Tribunal, Hyderabad, by filing S.A. No. 487 of 2012 and S.A. No. 381 of 2014. Simultaneously, the petitioner-Bank instituted O.A. No. 263 of 2011 seeking recovery of outstanding dues. During the pendency of the said proceedings, Respondent No. 4 lodged complaints dated 07.07.2011 and 01.12.2012, which culminated in registration of FIR Nos. 514 of 2011 and 967 of 2012, respectively. The allegations therein pertain to fabrication, interpolation, and manipulation of documents by officials of the petitioner-Bank. It is pertinent to note that earlier criminal petitions seeking quashment of the said FIRs were dismissed as premature, granting liberty to the petitioners to approach the Court at an appropriate stage.
3.3. The petitioners contend that the allegations contained in the FIRs are substantially identical to the issues pending before the Debt Recovery Tribunal and that the criminal proceedings have been initiated as a counterblast to the recovery actions undertaken under the SARFAESI Act. It is further asserted that all actions complained of were carried out by Bank officials in discharge of their statutory duties and are protected under Section 32 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002, which provides immunity for acts done in good faith. On these grounds, the petitioners seek quashment of the criminal proceedings.
4.1. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the impugned criminal proceedings are illegal, arbitrary, and constitute an abuse of the process of law, having been initiated with mala fide intent to thwart lawful recovery proceedings. It is contended that the dispute arises purely out of loan transactions and enforcement of security interest, which are civil in nature and have already been subjected to adjudication before the Debt Recovery Tribunal, Cuttack in O.A. No. 67 of 2018 and connected proceedings. It is pleaded that appeals against the order dated 22.01.2019 passed by the Tribunal are pending, and therefore, the matter is sub judice.
4.2. It is further argued that continuation of criminal proceedings would result in parallel adjudication of issues already seized by the Tribunal. It is also contended that a plain reading of the FIRs does not disclose the essential ingredients of any cognizable offence, and that the proceedings have bee
