CRLP/321/2019 of N.Somasekhar Rao Vs The Central Bureau of Investigation on 6 February 2026

ORDER:

Heard Mr- G. Vidya sagar, leamed Senior counsel representing Mr. Mamidi Avinash Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Srinivas Kapatia, leamed Speciar public prosecutor for cBI appearing for 1't respondent and IWs. pearl Law Associates appearing for respondent No.2. 2- The present criminal petition is filed under Section _ 4g2 of the code of criminal procedure, rg73 (for short, .crpc,) by the petitioner to quash the proceedings in c.c.No .44 of 2olg pending on the file of XXI Additional chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad E- KL,J Crl.l'. No.32l of 2019 arising out of FIR No.RC-7U2016/CBI/EOWChennai, dated 2g.Og.211rr of CBI, EOW, Chennai. The petitioner herein is A'7 in C.C.No.4 4 of 2018. The offences alleged against the petitioner herein are punishable under Sections 120-8 read with 420, 468 and 471 of IPC.

3. ,Jn 29.09.2016, Sri D.Ravindra Rao, Deputy General Manager, State Bank of India, Secunderabad Zone -2nd respondent, lodged a :omplaint with 1" respondent alleging that IWs Akshaya ornamenrr; Pvt.Ltd. (AOPL) - A.1 initially represented by A.2 - Managing Director and A.3 - Director, father and son, having its registered office at Mahalakshmi Gems and Jewels Mall. Chirag Ali Lane, Abi,js, Hyderabad, work place at Shop No.108, Mayur Kushal Complex, Abids, Hyderabad, availed Working Capital Limit of Rs'9 crores on 19.l2.2}l2 from 2nd respondent bank for a period of one year by fu:nishing fabricated document, proceedings of conversion of land as ge:nuine one, secured credit facility and thereby cheate d 2"d responden: bank. The said account slipped into NPA on 24'01 '2015 with an outstanding amount of Rs.8'93 Crores'

4. Basing on the said complaint dated29.09-2016, the [nspector of Police, SPE/CBI/EOWChennai the tnvestigating Officer, \

aJ ,. KL,J

registered the aforesaid crime, conducted investigation and found that A.l was engaged in the business of purchasing gold from wholesale authorized traders and getting their ornaments manufactured at their own workplace. A.2 and A.3 mortgaged two properties viz., an open land admeasuring Ac.23.03 guntas in Sy. Nos. 371,372 and 377lpiki at Thummaloor village, Maheshwaram Mandal, Ranga Reddy District in the name of A-2 who purchased the said property from shri Syed Mumtaz Ali, through a Sale Deed l4lolzol2 dated L3.o4.2otz, registered at SRo Maheshwaram Mandal and he semi-finished residential duplex house bearing No. 4 admeasuring2100 sq. ft. built up area being a part of the premises No. 30-265/21/s4 on the part of Plot No.4ll150 sq. yds. in Sy. No. 304, situated at Geetha Nagar, Safilguda, Malkajgiri Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, with the 2,d respondent bank.

5. The investigation further revealed that the tanded property was valued by M/s Subha Syndicate represented by the petitioner herein vide his report dated l5.ll.zor2 for Rs. 22,02,2g,4701-. whereas, during April, 2012, the said property was purchased by A-2 from sri syed Mumtaz Ali only for Rs. 5.g3 crores. During February 2015, the same property was re-valued by the petitioner herein and the /

KL,J Crl.P No.32l of 2019 title dee,J stood in the name of Shri Syed Mumtaz Ali but not A-2. In addition, the second collateral property was also valued by the petitioner vide his report dated 03.11.2012 for Rs. 68,10,000-00. The petitionerlA.T had given only an inflated value of the property which was purchased only for Rs. 5.83 Crores. Thus, the petitioner herein and A.8 with criminal intention to favour A-1 to A.3 to avail the credit facilities from the bank by deceiving it to the tune of Rs. 9 Crores, isrsued the above said legal opinions and valuation reports.

6. Investigation further revealed that after obtaining second valuation report dated 24.12.2012 from the petitioner/A.7, the equitable mortgage was created on both collateral properties on 19.01.2013 and the Memorandum of Deposit of Title Deed (MOD) was registered with the District Registrar, Ranga Reddy District, thereby the limits were sanctioned to A-l company and credited to the CC accou:rt No. 62267120108 at State Bank of India (eSBH).

7. lihi Syed Mumtaz Ali S/o Late Syed Mohammed Ali, a resident c,f Thummaloor Village, Maheswaram Mandal raised an objection through a letter dated 28.02.2013 regarding release of credit/loan to A-1 company on the ground that the sale consideration of the property under document No. 1410 of 2012 dated 13.04.20t2 \ \ \ \

KL,J Crl.P. No.32t of 2019 was not received by him as A-2 gave an undertaking to him that the payment wourd be honoured on or before 2r.0s.2012 aftergetting the Ioan sanctioned by the bank. Sri B chandrakanth Gupta, the then Branch Manager, after consurting the then DGM, Zonarofficer, sent a reply to Sri syed Mumtaz Ari on 04.03.2013 stating that the mafter is extraneous to the bank's business transactions / dealings with the company and the dispute, if any, with the above company may be settled accordingry. The originar Sare Deed No.l4 ro/20r2 dated 13.04.2012 was canceiled on 0t.07.2013 by sri Syed Mumtaz Ali with A-2 at Sub-Registrar office, Abdurapur through cance,ation deed bearing document No. I g5r20l3 without the knowredge of State Bank of India (eSBH). 8' A'3 resigned from the directorship of A- l company during April 2013 replaced by A-4 sri Morugu Rameshwara chary, as one of the Director of A-l company. A-2 intimated the changes in the directorship of A-r company to the bank and sought renewar of existing cc facility by suppressing the fact of canceration of the landed property. Then, on reques t of A-z,the loan was renewed by the bank to the tune of Rs. g crore on 2g.03.2014 with the same colraterar securities.

KL,J Crl.P. No.32t of 2019

9. Therefo re, A.Tlthe petitioner herein had fraudulently cheated 2nd respondent Bank by submitting false/fabricated documents to the tune of Rs. 8.93 Crores.

10. After completion of investigation, 1" respondent - lnvestigatilg Officer filed charge sheet before the trial Court and the trial Court numbered the same as C'C'No '44 of2018' lt.Thepetitionerherein_A.Tfiledthepresentcriminal petitionseekingtoquashtheproceedingsinthesaidC.C.No.44of 2018 on the foltowing grounds:- i.ThePetitionerisanEngineerwithM.TechinElectrical (IIT-Kanpur).HestartedaFirminthenameandstyleof M/s. Subha Syndicate in the year 1992 to issue engineeringvaluationstovariousindustriesandBanks. ii.Thepetitionerwasempanelledofficiallyasavaluerby the State Bank of India' in 1997 ' iii.ThePetitionergavevaluationtothesubjectlanded propertyafterinspectingthesaidsiteon0g.||.20|2 basingonthesaledeedbearingdocumentNo.l4l0of zllzprovided by the 2nd respondent - Bank' wherein A'2 il a

KL,J Crl.P, No.32l of20l9 was the owner of the landed property at the said relevant point of time.

iv. 2nd respondent Bank requested for fresh valuation for the said property, without furnishing any other documents to prepare fresh valuation. v. vide letter dated 04.02.2015, the petitioner informed to the Bank that in his report dated 09.12.2012, he has mentioned A.2 as the title holder of the landed property as per the sale deed bearing document No.l4l0 of 2ol2 dated 09-04.2012 and Encumbrance certificate. while preparing second valuation, the revenue records revealed that the sale deed was cancelled in 2013, much after the valuation report dated 09.12.2012 and the same is confirmed by Encumbrance certificate. A.2 is no longer owner of the said property by virtue of cancellation of the said sale deed.

vi. In reply to the letter dated 04.02.2015 of rhe petitioner, the 2nd respondent Bank vide letter dated 26.02.2015 sought for immediate submission of fresh valuation ignoring the details of the letter dated O4.0Z.ZOl5. I

Crl.P. No.32l ol 20tY Y

vii. The petitionef had submitted another letter dated 04.03.2015 stating that the subject property does not belong to A.Z,and the Encumbrance certificate conf,trms the same. vlll. After receiving letter dated 26.02.20[5, the Petitioner had immediately dispatched fresh valuation report as on that date stating that the property does not belong to A'2 as thesaledeedbearingdocumentNo.l4l0of20|2dated 0g.o4.2ol2wascancelledwhichwasconfirmedbythe Sub-Registrar, The letter dated 10.03.2015 issued by the Petitioner was subsequentlyfollowedupwiththevaluationreportdated 25.03.2015 submitted to the Complainant Bank' On receiving the letter dated 26.02.2015 of the znd respondentBank,onl0.03'z}ls,thePetitionermadeone more representation stating that the said land does not belong to A.2. The title documents are not provided to petitioner that it is disputed tand. In fresh valuation report dated25.o3.2ol5,thePetitionercleartymentionedthat the market value of the subject land cannot be ascertained 1X x \ \ \ \

KL,J Crl.P. No.32l of 2019 xl. xii. xlll. as mandal jurisdiction of the said land by then was not ascertained by the revenue authorities. However, the Petitioner mentioned sub-Registrar office rate in the subject locality. Head office of the SBI issued circurar No. GB/2015- 16/3 dated 02-04.2015 removing the petitioner from the Panel for unsatisfactory work stating that Executing committee at their meeting held on 10.03.2015 accorded approval for removal of some of the valuers from the panel for various reasons. vide letter dated 25.07.2016, the Bank informed that there were deficiencies in valuation reports dated l5.l I .20t2 and 25.03 .2015 as it is mentioned in the said reports that the land does not belon g to A.2 but to third person and the said rand does not come under the purview of Thummaloor Village but comes under Maheshwaram Village. on 03.08.2016, the petitioner submitted detailed repry to the 2nd respondent Bank specifically mentioning about his informing to the Bank with regard to canceflation of sale l0 KL,J Crl.P. No.32l of20t9 deed bearing No. l4l0/2012 and ascertainment of mandal jurisdiction. But the bank failed to consider the same and removed his finn from empanelment' Aggrieved by the same, he filed W.P.No'30765 of 2017 challenging its de- panelment. Vide order dated 12'09'2017' this Court suspended the proceedings dated 02'04'2015 xiv.Thecontentsofthechargesheet,moreparticularly'the allegations leveled against the petitioner lack the ingredients of the aforesaid offences

12. With the aforesaid submissions, the petitioner/A'7 sought to quash the proceedings in C.C.No' 44 of 2018 against him'

13. Respondent No.l field counter contending that there are specific allegations against the petitioner/A'7' All the aforesaid contentions are defences which the petitioner has to take during trial and it is firr the trial Court to consider the same'

14. Sri G.Vidya Sagar, leamed Senior Counsel and Mr' Srinivas Kapatia, leamed SPecial Public ru6mis5ions extensivelY. Prosecutor, CBI, made their

15. In support of his case, the learned Senior Counsel has placed re,liance on the principle laid down by the High Court of lt KL,J

Madras in L.N.Rajagopalan vs. state by Additional Superintendent of Police', Apex court in CBI vs. K.Narayana Rao2, the High court of Judicature at Hyderabad for the state of Telangana and the State of Andhra pradesh in v.venkata Anil Kumar vs. CBI, Hyderabad3 and High Court of Andhra pradesh at Amaravati in Mr. P. sreenivasulu v. cBI, state of Andhra Pradesh, Visakhapatnam Bra ncha

16. Learned special Public prosecutor, cBI, placed reliance on the principle laid down by rhe Apex Coum in Abhishek Singh v. Ajay Kumars, the Delhi High court in Ashughosh Kumar Nirmal v. central Bureau of Investigation6 and High court of Judicature at Hyderabad for the State of Telangana and the State of Andhra pradesh in G. Satyanand Rao v. The State, CBI, HyderabadT. AL

17. As discussed supra, the allegations leveled against the petitioner/A.7 in the charge sheet are that the petitionerlA.T had issued valuation report dated 15.11.2012 with an inflated value of the ' zo09 scc Online Mad 3298 'eotz) 9 scc 512 ' Order dated 06.08.2015 in Crl.p.N os.6432 and 6448 of 2014 o Order dated28.07.2021 5zozs scc oNLINE sc 1313 6zoz t scc online Del 4 t0 ' Crl.R.Case Nos.551,55 2 and 555 of 201 l. F F

t2 KL,J

collateral properties with criminal intention to favour A-l to A'3 to avail credit facility from 2nd respondent bank and thus deceived the bank making it to grant credit facility to them to the tune of Rs' 9 crores by creating equitable mortgage on the aforesaid properties basing on his valuation report. The allegation against him is that vide his seconcl valuation report dated 24.12.20t2,he stated contrary to his first valuation report that the landed property is not in the name of A'2 andthemandaljurisdictionofthelandedpropertywasnot ascertained. Therefore, A.7/the petitioner herein, being the valuer of the bank, had fraudulently cheated 2nd respondent Bank by submitting false/fabricated documents to the tune of Rs. 8.93 crores and committerl breach of trust.

18. lt is not in dispute that the petitioner herein is the proprietor of IWs tiubha Syndicate and it is an approved valuator of 2nd respondent bank at the relevant point of time and it was de- empanelk:d later. It has submitted report dated 15.11 '2012 for Rs.22,02,28,4701-.InApril,z}lz,thesubjectpropertywaspurchased by A.2 from Syed Mumtaz Ali, for Rs.5.83 Crores. During February, z|ls,the same property was re-valued by the petitioner and the title deed stood in the name of Sri Syed Mumtaz Ali' \

t.,7 l3 KL,J

19. It is also apt to note that the second collateral property was valued by the petitioner vide his report dated 03.11.2012 for Rs.68,10,000/-. Thus, petitioner submitted an inflated value of the property which was purchased for Rs.5.83 Crores. The petitioner, in collusion with A.8, submitted the said reports to favour A.1 to A.3 to enable them to get credit facilities from 2nd respondent bank by deceiving the Bank to a tune of Rs.9 crores and committed the aforesaid offences.

20. In L.N. Rajagopalan (supra), the Madras High Court held that the petitioner therein was not liable to be prosecuted for various offences, as he was only an approved valuer. The poor approved valuer, though well qualified in assessing the value of the property, had been wrongly implicated on the allegation that no properties were in existence, as though he had committed an offence of cheating punishable under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code. The Court held that the other charges under Sections 4r9, 467,468 and 471 read with Section 120-8 of IPC were also without any basis, and that the allegation leveled against him is that he has involved in a conspiracy with the other accused was only a figment of the imagination of the investigating agency. Though the valuer of the bank had been t4 KL,J

subjected to prosecution for offences under Sections 120-B read with Sections ,120,41g,467,468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 13(2) read with Section 13(lxd) of the Prevention of Comrption Act by the trial Court, the Madras High Court held that such prosecution was unsustainable and the Court finds that no prima facie case has been made out.

21. ln the present case, facts are different and that prima facie there are ripecific allegations against the petitioner herein.

22. Ir-CBI V. K. Narayana Rao (supra) of the Apex Court, the Petitioner', CBI preferred SLP being aggrieved the order of the High Court in quashing the proceedings against respondent, a legal practitiorrer and a panel advocate for Vijaya Bank. The only allegation against him is that he submitted false legal opinion to the Bank in respect of the housing loans in the capacity of a panel advocate and did not ;roint out actual ownership of the properties. The Coun held that the offence of conspiracy cannot be deemed to have been established on mere suspicion and surmises or inference not supported by cogerrt and acceptable evidence. A professional may be held liable for negtLgence on one of the two findings that either he was not possessed of the requisite skill which he professed to have possessed \ \ \

l5 KL,J Crl.P. No.32l of20l9 for, he did not exercise with reasonable competence. It was further held that at the most the respondent may be liable for gross negligence or professional misconduct if it is established by proper evidence. Thereby, upheld the quash of the High court.

23. rn v. venkata Anil Kumar (supra), the High court of Judicature at Hyderabad for the State of Telangana and the State of Andhra Pradesh, observed that the allegations against the petitioners, Advocates, who gave legal opinion, while the respondents were the cBI and bank officials. [t was held that none of the records, namely the FIR, the charge sheet, or the statements recorded under section 161 cr.P.c., placed any material to show the petitioner,s criminal association with the other accused for hatching a criminal conspiracy to cheat the bank. At best, the allegation amounted to negligence on the part of the petitioner. To impute criminal negligence, the prosecution must invariably estabtish mensrea on the part of the accused, which was found to be lacking in the case. considering the above aspects, the court held that there was no prima facie material to prosecute the petitioner and that continuation of the criminal proceedings would certainly amount to an abuse of the process of the Court.

t6 KL,J

24. In Mr. P. Sreenivasulu (supra) of High Court of Andhra Pradesh lt Amaravati, the petitioner is an empanelled property valuer for Bank of Maharashtra, Nellore. The Petitioner was charged with the offence punishable under Section 120-8 rlw 420,467 and 471 of IPC, 1860 anct other provisions of Pc Act. The allegations leveled against him werr: based on false and fabricated house site document issued by MRO, the petitioner without noticing the same valued the at Rs.49,99,500/-. He has fited a petition to discharge him' The trial Court has dismissed the petition observing that the property is undervalued or valued is a question of fact, which can be decided only during the course of trial, against with criminal revision was filed. The High Court upon consideration of facts and law laid down placing reliance rpon the principle laid down by the Apex Court in CBI Vs' K. Nar:ryana Rao (supra) and Madras High court in L. N. Rajagopalan (Supra) has held that Panel valuers/professional cannot be chargr:d for the offence under Sections 420 of IPC along with other conspirators without proper and acceptable link between them' The empanelled property valuer of the complainant bank has given his opinion ils such the offences under the provisions of the IPC or PC Act are not attracted to the petitioner therein' \

t7 KL,J

25. In Abhishek Singh (supra), the Apex court observed that the allegation levelled was that the respondents, who were bank officials, had committed offences under Sections 420, 406 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code in relation to the revaluation and retention of the gold pledged by the appellant, a bank customer who had availed a loan. The High Court had quashed the FIR holding it to be a mere counterblast and malicious. on consideration of these aspects, the Apex Court held that the High Court had retied upon material other than the FIR. It was further hetd that once the loan stood settled, it was difficult to understand as to why the gotd was revalued and auctioned by the respondents. The Apex Court held that in no circumstances could it be said that no prima facie case was made out and, accordingly, set aside the order of quashing and restored the proceedings.

26. ln Ashughosh Kumar Nirmal (supra), Delhi High court held that the allegation against the petitioner, empanelled valuer of Corporation Bank, was that he prepared inflated valuation reports in regard to the properties offered for mortgage by the borrowers, and that when the respondent got the same properties valued from independent valuers, there was a huge difference between the

KL,J Crl.P. No.32l of 2019 valuation given by the petitioner therein and those independent valuers. The learned Trial Court, framed charges against the petitioner, which were challenged before the high court to quash the same. Upon consideration, the Court held that the value of properties is variable and may include a dip in prices, and that the contentions raised with regard to opinion-based valuation reports are matters of evidence. The Court further held that the observations made by the learned l'rial Court against the petitioner were all matters of evidence which cannot be decided unless and until evidence is led, and accordintrSly fbund no infirmity in the order on charge and upheld the same without quashing. 27 . In G. Satyanand Rao (supra), the High Court of Judicature at Hyder:rbad for the State of Telangana and the State of Andhra Pradesh Feld that the petitioner, a panel valuer of the banks and was arrayed c.s an accused on the allegation that he had valued the properties offered as collateral security at higher values, thereby facilitatinl3 sanction of higher loan amounts. Charge sheets were filed for the ofl'ences punishable under Sections 120-B, 419, 420, 467, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code and Section l3(2) read with Section l3(1xd) of the Prevention of Comrption Act, 1988. The petitioner \ \

t9 KL,J

filed applications under section 239 crpc seeking discharge, which were dismissed by the learned Special Judge for cBI cases holding that there was material to proceed against the accused. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner filed criminal revision cases and on consideration of the said aspects, the High court held that whether the valuation reports were false or inflated is a matter to be decided during trial, that at the stage of discharge a meticulous examination of evidence is not permissible, and that no illegality or perversity was found in the order passed by the trial court, and held that if the panel valuer exhibited conscious criminal or culpable negligence as a valuer and committed breach of his duty and caused loss, it amount to criminal misconduct prima facie and accordingly dismissed the revlslon cases.

28. It is the specific contention of the petitioner herein that none of offences charged under Section 120-8 rlw 420,46g and 471 of Ipc can be attributed to him as the charge sheet does not speak or evidence the link between all the accused and their rneeting of mind to conspire to defraud the bank. The petitioner does not have expertise to dispute the genuineness of the document and as a valuer, it is not his duty to look into the authenticity of the documents. Sect ion 420 is concemed,

KL,J Crl.P. No.32l of 2019 there is no dishonest intention on his part much less any inducement and deceit.

29. On the other hand, it is the specific contention of 2nd respondent bank that the loan became NPA on 24.ol.2ols, for recovery proceedings, the bank asked the petitioner to conduct second valuation of the landed property and submit report, for which the petitioner: contrary to his own previous valuation report, issued second valuation report dated 25.03.2015 stating that A.2 was not the owner of the landed property and mandal jurisdiction of the subject land is yet to br: ascertained by the revenue officials. Thus, the petitioner issued fatse valuation report initially with inflated value of the landed property basing on false conversion certificate, facilitated A.2 and A.3 to misappropriate the funds of the bank and cheated the bank, which acts of the petitioner constitutes the subject offences. 30 Thus, prima facie, there are specific allegations against the petitioner/A.7. The facts in the aforesaid judgments are different from the facts Ln the case on hand.

31. In Somjeet Mallick v. State of Jharkhand8, the Apex Court held as fo[[ows:- 81zoz+1 lo s(lc 527 \ \

2t KL,J Crl.P. No.l2l of 2019

15. Before we proceed to test the correctness of the impugned order. we must bear in mind that at the stage of decidins whether a criminal proceedins or FIR as the case mav be. is to be ouashed at the threshold or not. the allegations in the FIR or the nolice report or the complaint. includins the materials eqllectej duting investigation or inquiry, as the case may be, are to be taken at their face value so as to determine whether a prima facie case for investigation or proceeding against the accused. as the case may bc-is naade out. The correctness of the allegations is not to be tested at this stage.

16. To commit an offence, unless the penal statute provides otherwise, mens rea is one of the essential ingredients. Existence of mens rea is a question of fact which may be inferred from the act in question as well as the surrounding circumstances and conduct of the accused. As a sequitur, when a party alleges that the accused, despite taking possession of the truck on hire, has failed to pay hire charges for months together, while making false promises for its payment, a prima facie case, reflective of dishonest intention on the part of the accused, is made out which may require investigation. [n such circumstances, if the FIR is quashed at the very inception, it would be nothing short of an act which thwarts a legitimate investigation.

17. It is trite law that FIR is not an encvclopaedia of all imputations. Therefore. to test whether an FIR discloses commission of a cognizable offence what is to be looked at is not anv omission in the accusations but the gravamen of the accusations contained therein to find out whether. nrima e- some cosnizable offence has been committed or uqt. At this staee, the court is not required to ascertain as to which specific offence has been committed.

18. It is only after investisation. at the time of framing charqe, rthen materials collffie investigation are before the court. the court has to draw an opinion as to for commission of which offence the accused should be tried. Prior to that. if satisfied. the /

KL,J Crl.P. No.32l of20t9 court mav evendischarse the accused. Thus. when the FIR alleees a dishonest conduct on the part of the accused which. if supported bv materials would isclose commis ion of aco izable offen investisation should not be thwarted by ouash the tn FTR.

19. No doubt, a petirion to quash the FIR does not becomc infructuous on submission of a police report under Section 173(2)CrPC, but when a police report has been submitted, particularly when there is no stay on the investigation, the court must apply its mind to the materials submitted in suppo( of the police report before taking a call u'hether the FIR and consequential proceedings should be quashed or not. More so, when the FIR alleges an act which is rcflective ofa dishonest conduct ofthe accused.

32. As discussed supra, in the present case also, prima facie, there are specific allegations against the petitioner/A.7. The aforesaid contentio:ls o[the petitioner are defences which he has to take during trial and it is for the triat court to consider. The petitioner has to face trial and prove his innocence before the trial Court. On the said contentions, this Court cannot quash the proceedings against the petitioner herein.

33. In the light of the aforesaid contentions and facts of the case, prima facie, there are specific allegations against the petitioner herein/A.7 that he, being the panel valuer ofthe 2rd respondent bank, conspired with A.2 and A.3 with an intention to help them for obtaining Loan from the bank, submitted farse valuation report with \

I l 1! z) KL,J

inflated value of the landed property and forged conversion certificate. A.2 and A.3 used the same as genuine one and created equitable mortgage on both the aforesaid collateral properties and made the bank to grant credit facilities to A.2 and A.3 to the tune of Rs. 9 Crores, and thereby cheated the bank causing huge loss to it. The other allegation against the petitioner is that he issued second valuation certificate dated 25.03.2015 stating that A.2 was not the owner of the landed property and jurisdiction was not ascertained, which is contra to his own first valuation report dated 09.12.2012.

34. Prima facie, there are specific allegations against the petitioner herein and the same are triable issues. The petitioner has to face trial and prove his innocence before the trial Court. Once this Court finds that there is prima facie, material to proceed against the petitioner/A.7 , this Court cannot exercise power under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. Even the contentions raised by the petitioner are also triable issues which this Court cannot go into in an apptication fited under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. Thus, the petitioner fails to make out any case to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.44 of 2018. Therefore, this Criminal Petition is liable to be dismissed and is dismissed. \ t

KL,J Crl.P. No.32l of 2019

35. In the light of the aforesaid discussion, this criminal Petition ir; dismissed. However, liberty is granted to the petitionerlA.T to raise the contentions/grounds which he raised before this court, before the trial Court in C.C.No.44 of 2018. As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in the criminal t'etition shall stand closed. SD/- AHMED ABDULLA KHAN ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER

1. The XXI ,\dditional Chief lVletropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad

2. The Cenlral Bureau of lnvestigation, Economic Offences Wing P.S., Chennai

3. One CC 1o SRI tvlAMlDl AVINASH REDDY, Advocate [OPUC]

4. One CC l:o SRI SRINIVAS KAPATIA (SPL PP FOR CBI) [OPUC]

5. One CC 1o M/s. Pearl law Associates, Advocate [OPUC]

6. Two CD (lopies ADK/PSLw To, It

-, HIGH COURT DATED i 0610212A26

ORDER

CRLP.No.321 of 2019 DISMISSilNG THE CRLP S Y o 1 2 l4rtR 7fl7n z * * b