IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 26th DAY OF APRIL, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE ARAVIND KUMAR CRIMINAL PETITION NO.3669/2017 BETWEEN:
DASARATH REDDY S/O. G. PAPI REDDY AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS, RESIDING AT 22-14/2, PENT HOUSE, PRAVEEN RESIDENCY, DURGHABAI DESHMUKH COLONY, BAGH AMBERPAET, HUDERABAD – 01 ... PETITIONER (BY SRI.NAGENDRA NAIK R, ADVOCATE) AND:
THE CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION ANTI CORRUPTION BRANCH GANGANAGAR, BELLARY ROAD, BANGALORE REP. BY SPECIAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BANGALORE -01 ...RESPONDENT (BY SRI.P. PRASANNA KUMAR, ADVOCATE) THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 CR.P.C. PRAYING TO QUASH THE PROCEEDINGS IN C.C.NO.21007/2010 ON THE FILE OF SVII A.C.M.M., BENGALURU CITY AS PER ANNEXURE-A.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R Petitioner who is arraigned as accused No.1 has sought for quashing of proceedings pending in C.C.No.21007/2010 pending on the file of XVII Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore, which has been registered by respondent-CBI for the offences punishable under Section 120B r/w Sections 420, 467 and 471 IPC.
2. The gist of complaint filed by State Bank of Hyderabad, J.C. Road Branch, Bangalore is; petitioner is the Managing Director of GDR International Limited and Standard Traders; during the year 1999-2000 he entered into criminal conspiracy with accused Nos.2 to 14 and pursuant to same submitted an application for availing export credit of `1 Crore and offered certain securities, based on which credit limit was granted. It was further alleged though credit limit was to be secured through mortgage of immovable property, petitioner had offered 2 cars. It was further alleged that petitioner conspired with late Ramalinga Reddy and created a false sale deed dated 23.03.1997 in respect of property situated at Hyderabad, as though belonging to accused Nos.4 to 14 and offered the same as security for loan, knowing fully well such property was not registered in the Office of Sub-Registrar. It is further alleged that accused No.2 gave a false legal opinion to the complainant-Bank certifying that accused Nos.4 to 14 has clear marketable title, based on which loan was sanctioned. Hence, contending accused have produced forged documents to the Bank and obtained loan, sought for suitable action being taken against the accused.
3. I have heard the arguments of Sri.Nagendra Naik, learned counsel appearing for petitioner and Sri.P.Prasanna Kumar, learned Advocate appearing for respondent. Perused the records.
4. It is the contention of Sri. Nagendra Naik, learned counsel appearing for petitioner that entire loan amount has been repaid, which is also not disputed by the Bank and as such no useful purpose would be served in continuing the proceedings. He would also contend that after full fledged trial accused Nos.2 to 14 have been acquitted and as such continuation of proceedings against petitioner would onerous and it would not serve any purpose. Hence, he prays for allowing the petition.
5. Per Contra, Sri. P. Prasanna Kumar, learned Advocate appearing for respondent would reiterate the contentions raised in the statement of objections and pray for dismissal of petition.
6. Having heard the learned Advocates appearing for parties and on perusal of records it would emerge therefrom that on account of petitioner having remained absent a split up charge sheet came to be filed against petitioner in C.C.No.21007/2010 and trial was proceeded against other accused persons namely accused Nos.3 to 14. During the pendency of proceedings before trial Court accused No.2 expired and as such proceedings got abated. Learned trial Judge after evaluating the entire evidence has acquitted accused Nos.3 to 14 by judgment dated 05.05.2010. Said judgment has attained finality, which fact is also admitted by respondent in paragraph 5 of its statement of objections.
7. The allegations made against petitioner and allegations made against accused Nos.3 to 14 are similar and identical in nature. Even if the prosecution launched against petitioner is taken to its logical end, it would not yield any fruitful result or in other words, it would not end in conviction of accused inasmuch as judgment rendered by learned trial Judge in C.C.No.10610/2004 acquitting accused Nos.3 to 14 would indicate that allegation of criminal conspiracy has not been proved. In the light of said finding recorded and also in view of the fact that pursuant to recovery certificate issued by the jurisdictional Debt Recovery Tribunal having been satisfied by the borrower by paying the entire amount due to the Bank, no purpose would be served in continuing the proceedings. In fact, accused Nos.5 to 14 had been discharged and allegation of A-1 having conspired with A-3 to defraud the Bank was not proved and as such learned trial Judge had acquitted accused No.3.
8. In the light of above facts, this Court is of the considered view that continuation of proceedings against petitioner would not only be onerous but would also be waste of precious judicial time.
Hence, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER (i) Criminal petition is allowed.
(ii) Proceedings pending against petitioner in C.C.No.21007/2010 on the file of XVII Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore, registered for the offences punishable under Section 120B r/w Sections 420, 467 and 471 IPC is quashed and petitioner (A-1) is acquitted of the said offences.
SD/- JUDGE DR