IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD PRESENT THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.RAVI SHANKAR CRL.P.No.4348 OF 2011 Date:13.06.2011 Between:- P.Srinivasa Prasad and others .. Petitioners/A-7 to A-10 And State of A.P., Rep.by Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad and another. ..Respondents/Respondent & De facto Complainant ORDER:- Heard Sri T.Bala Mohan Reddy, learned Counsel for the petitioners and also the learned Public Prosecutor. 2. The petitioners are shown as Accused Nos.7 to 10 in Crime No.83 of 2011 of Abid Road Police Station, Hyderabad. The offences alleged are those punishable under Sections 109, 183, 403, 406, 419, 420 and 477 read with 120 B I.P.C. 3. As per the First Information Report, the complainant is the IDBI Bank. The allegations in the complaint are that the other accused in the case mainly A-1 to A-3 purchased certain property with the loan given by the complainant bank and mortgaged it and later on, sold it to others in order to cheat the bank by canceling the deed under which security has been created. Here, it should be noted that in the complaint, which was originally filed before the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, the grievance of the complainant bank is only with regard to 736 square yards. The further allegations are that subsequently, the principal culprits, these accused and others sold away their properties including the above 736 sq.yds in favour of others under a development agreement. 4. The plea of the petitioners is that they have nothing to do with 736 sq.yds in question given as security to the bank but they are the owners of the other property and they have been unnecessarily dragged into the case. 5. The allegations show that the petitioners also colluded and therefore, these aspects have to be first decided by the Investigating Agency and later on, by the Court, in case they are put on trial. Hence, this petition is dismissed. 6. Having regard to the submissions made by the petitioners’ Counsel and also the fact that the petitioners have nothing to do with 736 sq.yds, and after hearing the learned Public Prosecutor, it is directed that police may take a decision about arrest of petitioners after completion of the investigation. _____________________ N.RAVI SHANKAR, J 13th June, 2011 AMD THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.RAVI SHANKAR CRL.P.No.4348 OF 2011 Date:13.06.2011 AMD