IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD WEDNESDAY THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND FOURTEEN PRESENT HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE S. RAVI KUMAR CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 1464 OF 2012 Between:
TVV Satyanarayana & Anr. … Petitioners/A-1 & A-2 V/s.
The State of Andhra Pradesh Through Station House Officer, Chadarghat Police Station Represented by its Public Prosecutor High Court of Andhra Pradesh Hyderabad & Ors. … Respondents/Complainant Counsel for Petitioners : Sri V.V. Ramana Counsel for Respondents : Public Prosecutor The Court made the following: [order follows] HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE S. RAVI KUMAR CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 1464 OF 2012 O R D E R :
This Criminal Petition is filed under section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash proceedings in CC.No. 506 of 2009 on the file of VIII Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Nampally, Hyderabad.
2. Heard Advocate for Petitioner. It is submitted that complaint is filed on 22/4/2009 but as per statement of account filed alongwith material papers, petitioner’s account has been closed on 10/2/2009 as the petitioner paid the entire loan amount to the bank on 07/2/2009. It is submitted that by suppressing the payment of entire loan amount, the complainant-bank filed the above complaint and the court took cognizance of it. He further submitted that the petitioner paid commercial rate of interest and also collected pre-closure fee from the petitioner.
3. None appeared for the second and third respondents.
4. I have perused the material papers. The bank filed complaint for offences under section 420, 465, 468, read with section 34 IPC and after recording sworn statement of Bank Manager, learned Magistrate took cognizance for the offence under section 405 IPC only.
5. According to the complaint allegations, the petitioner at the time of sanction of loan mortgaged immovable property and that he fraudulently alienated that mortgaged property, is one of the allegations. In the sworn statement, the complainant i.e., Bank Manager stated that the mortgaged property was sold on 16/11/2007 in favour of third party so this allegation of alienation is long prior to closure of the loan account. Therefore, the contention of learned counsel for petitioner that in view of payment of entire loan amount no cause survives cannot be accepted. Prima facie, it is clear that mortgaged property was sold away during pendency of the loan account and the trial court has to see whether it was a fraudulent transaction or genuine transaction on the basis of evidence let-in on behalf of both parties.
6. On a scrutiny of the material on record, I am of the view that there are no grounds to exercise powers under section 482 Cr.P.C. and the trial court rightly took cognizance for the offence under section 405 IPC only.
7. For the above reasons, this Criminal Petition is dismissed as devoid of merits.
JUSTICE S. RAVI KUMAR .
16/04/2014
I s L
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE S. RAVI KUMAR CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 1464 OF 2012 Circulation No. 59 Date:16/4/2014 Court Master: I s L Computer No.43