CRLP/13567/2015 of S.CHANDRASEKHARAN Vs THE STATE OF TELANGANA.,REP BY SPL PP FOR CBI AND ANOTHER on 29 December 2023

ORDER:

1 This criminal petition, under section 4g2 cr.p.C, is fired seeking to4g2 cr.p.C, is fired seeking tocr.p.C, is fired seeking tois fired seeking tofired seeking toseeking totoquash the proceedings against the petitioner / A.10 in C.c.No.7 of 2007 onthe file of the Court of the Special Judge for CBI cases, Hyderabad.2 Heard sri Vivek lain, learned senior counsel for the petitioner and MsAvanthi, learned Special [public ]prosecutor for CBI.

This criminal petition, under section 4g2 cr.p.C, is fired seeking to4g2 cr.p.C, is fired seeking tocr.p.C, is fired seeking tois fired seeking tofired seeking toseeking toto 3 The accusation against the petitioner is that the Inspector of porice,CBI, BS & FC, Bengaluru, Karnataka State, lodged a complaint against thepetitioner and others for the offences punishable under sections 4og, 41g,420,467,468 and 471read with section 120-8 of Ipc and under section 13(2) read with Section 13 (1) (c) and 13 (1) (d) of prevention of corruptionAct, 1988 in Crime No.RC2(E)/2003/CBI/BS&FC/CNI dared 12.5.2003 andafter completion of investigation the police filed charge sheet which wastaken on file as c.c.No.7 of 2007 on the fire of the court of the rearnedSpecial Judge for CBI cases, Hyderabad.4 The allegation against the petitioner herein who was arrayed asaccused No. 10 was that the petitioner / A.i0 is proprietor of serverAssociates and he had valued the property offered by Munna Lal Agarwal assecurity for the loan granted by oriental Bank of commerce to shakti steels and the investigation revealed that the property at plot No.1-9-9,

and the investigation revealed that the property at plot No.1-9-9, admeasuring 1g54 sq' yards situated at Zamistanpur, RamnaEar, Hyderabadwas not avairabre for valuation as mentioned in the report submitted by thepetitioner r A.10 ana it was deriberatery conceared by the petitioner and thatMr'Nagabhushanam Naidu who was the owner of the property had expiredlong back' The property was divided into sma, prots which rryere inpossession of different persons and that it has become evident that thepetitioner / A'10 had submitted a varuation report on a property which is notin existence and the same was confirmed by another valuer who was laterappointed by the oriental Bank of commerce for submitting varuation reporton the above mentioned property.5 The learned counser for the petitioner submi.ted that by the timecharge sheet was filed by the CBI, the dispute between them and thecomplainant Bank was settled by way of compromise and the de factocomplainant bank has issued No Dues Certificate and hence continuation ofcriminar proceedings wi, not serve any purpose. He further submitted thatthe entire dispute pertains to non-payment of roan amounts and it cannot besaid that any offence as a'eged in the charge sheet is committed and sincethe entire amount has been repaid, the main ingredient to attract theoffence of cheating does not attract. The rearned counser for the petitionerfurther submitted that the rore of the petitioner in the areged fraud is verylimited and is confined to submission of varuation report. The petitioner is an approved valuer and that he prepared the valuation report passed on thedocuments submitted by A.1 to A.3. The petitioner has no knowledge aboutthe details relating to the actual ownership of the plot at Zamistanur,documents submitted by A.1 to A.3. The petitioner has no knowledge aboutthe details relating to the actual ownership of the plot at Zamistanur,Ramnagar, Hyderabad and that there is no material in the charge sheet toshow that the petitioner had deliberately and with fraudulent intentionconcealed the information in spite of having knowledge that the real ownerof the propefi died long back. The learned counsel for the petitioner reliedon the ratio laid down in LN Rajagoplan vs. Statel, Nand Lal Sehgal Vs.CBI2, CBI vs. BB Agarwal3, CBI vs. Narendar Lal Jaina, and CBI vs.K.Narayana Raos in support of his contentions.of the propefi died long back. The learned counsel for the petitioner reliedon the ratio laid down in LN Rajagoplan vs. Statel, Nand Lal Sehgal Vs.CBI2, CBI vs. BB Agarwal3, CBI vs. Narendar Lal Jaina, and CBI vs.K.Narayana Raos in support of his contentions.

6 On the other hand, the learned standing counsel for CBI contendedthat whether the petitioner had knowledge about the death of the realowner or not will have to be assessed only after a full-fledged trial andhence this is not the stage to decide or assess the role of the petitioner 7 Having regard to the rival submissions, without expressing any opinionon the merits of the case, this Court is of the prima facie opinion that thepetitioner is not entitled to the relief sought for because there is no materialavailable before this Court that basing on the memorandum of compromisefiled by the Oriental Bank of Commerce and Aren Steels and others in 2009 SCC OnLrnc, Matt 329u2021 Pt- tC 092688(2019) 15 SCC 5222021 Pt- tC 092688(2019) 15 SCC 522

(20r 4) s scc 36,1(2012) 9 SCC 5r2(2012) 9 SCC 5r2

o'A'*o'155 0f 2003 before the Debts Recovery Tribunar, Hyderabad, theproceedings against the other accused have been quashed or not. May be itis a good ground for the petitioner to canvass before the rearned triar court.But basing on the compromise arrived at between the Bank and the otheraccused, proceedings against the petitioner cannot be quashed. Moreover,the subsequent varuer varued the property at Rs.50.00 rakhs whereas thevalue of the property assessed by the petitioner was more than Rs.5.00crores' so there is abnormar variation in the varuation report submitted bythe petitioner and the subsequent varuer. whether the petitioner hassubmitted the varuation certificate bonafidery or not are the aspects, whichhave to be go;re during the course of trial only.

8 In that view of the matter, the criminar view of the matter, the criminar of the matter, the criminar matter, the criminar criminar petition is dismissed, grantingliberty to the petitioner to fire appropriate apprication before the rearned triarcourt and seek discharge. However, the presence of the petitioner beforethe trial Court is hereby dispensed with for each and every adjournment. Butthe petitioner shail appear before the triar court as and when his presence isrequired.

In that view of the matter, the criminar view of the matter, the criminar of the matter, the criminar matter, the criminar criminar petition is dismissed, granting Miscellaneous petitions if any pending in this criminal petition shall

9

also stand dismissed

SD/-K. VENKAIAHASSISTANT REGISTRAR

//TRUE COPY//

SECTION OFFICER

To,

1 The Court of Special Judge for CBI Cases at Hyderabadz. r ne tnspector of police, Central Bureau of lnvestigation BS & FC, Bengaluru,Karnataka Statez. r ne tnspector of police, Central Bureau of lnvestigation BS & FC, Bengaluru,Karnataka State3. One CC to SRt VTVEK JA|N Advoc€te [OPUC][OPUC]4. Two CCs to MS_ ANANDI Spt- pp fOR Caf ,-iigt Court for the Srate ofTelangana at Hyderabad IOUZ'cD copies Telangana at Hyderabad IOUZ'cD copies furwo N\-/

HIGH COURT

DATED: 2911212023

ORDER

CRLP.No.13567 of 2015

THE CR!MINAL PETITIONIS DISMISSED

v[J]$-,o

16lE [s ][l,q ][,]:I,, i..-.,, ,l..ii ..r $,r}-J[ 2 [ir ][11 ]7024^1.F'J<

t.