HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY CRIMINAL PETITION No.795 OF 2008 DATE:24-06-2010
BETWEEN
T.V.L.N.Swamy
AND
…Petitioner
The State of A.P.,
Rep. by Inspector of Police,
Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), SPE, Hyderabad & Another.
…Respondents
THIS COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY CRIMINAL PETITION No.795 OF 2008
ORDER:
Petitioner, who is accused in C.C.No.508 of 2007 on the file of XIV Additional Chief metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad invoked the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing the proceedings in the said C.C. initiated against him for the offence punishable under Section 420 I.P.C.
The charge sheet reveals that the accused-petitioner and his wife opened an SB Account No.011-9000 6218 in State Bank of India, Personal Banking Branch, S.P. Road, Secunderabad.
Later, the petitioner having entered into a criminal conspiracy with C.R.Dikshitulu, the then Chief Manager of the bank opened another O.D. account in his name and in the name of his wife without any documentation. Later, an amount of Rs.4,90,000/- was debited to his account by way of standing instructions as entered into the system as well as passed by late C.R.Dikshitulu using the ID ‘CRD”. Later the fictitious O.D. account was debited with Rs.4.00 lakhs on 30.6.2003, Rs.50,000/- on 21.7.2003 and Rs.50,000/- on 21.7.2003 and that these amounts were credited to the joint SB account of the petitioner and his wife. Similarly, a personal loan account No.015-9300622002 was opened in the name of petitioner without any documentation and to the said account, a sum of Rs.2.49 lakhs was debited by way of standing instructions by late C.R.Dikshitulu, who entered as well as passed the said transaction using his user ID “CRD”. Later, the said amount was credited to the joint SB account of the petitioner and his wife. Subsequently, on 30.6.2003 the petitioner withdrew the entire fraudulent credit of Rs.7.39 lakhs from his joint SB account and used the same for his personal works. Later, on 4.6.2003, an SB account No.011-9000 7518 was opened in the name of one G.V.Krishna Rao on the introduction of the petitioner and the said account opening was authorized by late C.R.Dikshitulu. On 25.7.2003, the said SB account was fraudulently credited with an amount of Rs.15 lakhs by way of standing instructions by late C.R.Dikshitulu by debiting to the fictitious OD account created earlier in the joint names of the petitioner and his wife.
Subsequently, on 30.7.2003 said G.V.Krishna Rao issued a cheque for Rs.15.00 lakhs, favouring Smt. M.Dhanalakshmi, who is the wife of the brother-in-law of the petitioner. The said amount was credited to the SB account of Smt.N.Dhanalakshmi in the Development Credit Bank, Sanjeevareddynagar Branch, Hyderabad, and that from her SB account, the entire amount of Rs.15.00 lakhs was transferred to the SB account of the petitioner existing in the said bank. Thus, totally the O.D. amount of Rs.22.30 lakhs sanctioned to the O.D. account of the petitioner by late C.R.Dikshitulu without any documentation was later siphoned off by the petitioner. Later, on 31.7.2003, late C.R.Dikshitulu reversed the fictitious O.D. of Rs.15 lakhs given to the O.D. account of petitioner and his wife by fraudulently debiting the TDR account of the A.P. Housing Board by way of standing instructions. On 25.8.2003, an amount of Rs.7.00 lakhs was credited to the joint O.D. account of the petitioner from the current account of M/s. Talasila Estates Pvt. Ltd., to which the petitioner is the Managing Director. The bank had to compensate loss caused to the A.P. Housing Board by debiting the protested bills account of the bank, and that the net loss caused to the bank is Rs.15,39,000/-. On the said allegations, a case was registered by the Central Bureau of Investigation, Hyderabad in RC.No.23(A)/2004-CBI/Hyd for the offences punishable under Sections 120-B, 420 and 477-A IPC and Section 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 against the petitioner and others including the bank officials viz., late C.R.Dikshitulu, the then Chief Manager, SBI, PBB, S.P.Road, Secunderabad, B.Murali Krishna, the then Deputy Manager (Accounts),, Smt. Neeta Crao, the then Systems Administrator and P.Raghavendra Prasad, the then Assistant Manager (Advances). After investigation into the allegations, charge sheet has been filed only against the petitioner as the then Chief Manager-C.R.Dikshitulu is no more and the involvement of the other bank officials and one G.V.Krishna Rao was not established.
Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the entire loss of Rs.15.39 lakhs allegedly caused to the bank has already been paid by the petitioner and therefore, the impugned proceedings have to be quashed as the allegation is only that the O.D. account opened by the petitioner without any documentation was sanctioned by late C.R.Dikshitulu, the then Chief Manger of the bank. He contended that in the absence of any cheating by the petitioner and inducing the bank for providing Over Draft, the impugned proceedings cannot be continued.
Admittedly, the present case is a white collar offence, where the petitioner in connivance with late C.R.Dikshitulu and other bank officials got opened the SB account as well as O.D. account; got transferred the amount from the account of A.P. Housing Board and from the current account of M/s.Talasila Estates Pvt. Ltd. to his account and later he withdrew the said amount. Merely because the bank officials and other private persons have not been charged with any offence, the impugned proceedings against the petitioner cannot be quashed on the ground that he had already compensated the loss sustained by the bank (s e e CBI v.
Ravishanker Prasad [2009 (6) SCC 351] and Rumi Dhar (Smt.) v. State of West Bengal [2009 (6) SCC 364]. Further the C.B.I. has filed a charge sheet against the petitioner along with the statements of L.Ws.2 and 5 and the documents marked as D.37,D.38, D.45 to D.51, and D.1 to D.4, which are said to have established the role played by the petitioner in cheating the bank. In that view of the matter, I see no ground to quash the impugned proceedings at this stage.
The Criminal Petition is accordingly dismissed.
A. GOPAL REDDY, J.
JUNE 24, 2010 Tsr.