HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO CRIMINAL PETITION No. 4600 OF 2008. DATED 12TH JULY, 2010. BETWEEN Talluri Sudhakar ….Petitioner and Bank of Baroda Rep. By its Senior Branch Manager, Guntur and anr …Respondents HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO CRIMINAL PETITION No. 4600 OF 2008. ORDER: This Criminal Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. is ﬁled to quash the proceedings in C.C.No. 420 of 2007 on the ﬁle of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Special Mobile Court, Guntur as against the petitioner/accused No.2. The allegations made against the petitioner in the charge sheet, more particularly, at Paragraphs 4 to 6 read as follows: “During the month of December, 2004, the accused approach L.W.2 and requested for sanctioning of Cash Credit Loan for a limit of Rs.10,00,000/- towards working capital in the name of M/s.Annapurna Cotton Trading Company and furnished title deeds of the vacant site of 366.66 sq. yards of A.2 situated at Syamalanagar,Guntur, along with E.C. obtained from Sub Registrar, Nallapadu. L.W.3 visited the above said property and submitted his report. Then L.W.2 forwarded title deeds and E.C. to L.W.4 for legal opinion. Basing on the documents furnished by L.W.2, legal opinion was issued by L.W.4 opining that equitable mortgage can be created over the property oﬀered for security. Then L.W.2 sanctioned Rs.10,00,000/- cash credit loan while account No. 8116 of Bank of Baroda in the name of M/s. Annapurna Cotton Trading Company, by creating equitable mortgage over the property of A.2. Both the accused on behalf of M/s. Annapurna Cotton Trading Company, hypothecated its stocks by entering into an Hypothecation Agreement. On 16.12.2004 the accused withdrew the amount and utilized for the business. When the accused failed to re pay the amounts,L.W.1 caused the enquiries and learnt that the accused are not doing business. When L.W.1 inspected the property of A.2, it was found divided by arranging fencing. Having learnt that A2 sold away a portion of the property prior to mortgage to one Parimi Jyothsna Latha, who is a tenant of L.W.6. Some how L.W.1 secured the presence of A.2 and enquired. Then A.2 admitting his guilt, he gave an undertaking letter on 10.7.2006 at Bank. But A2 failed to keep up his promise. Having learnt that the accused cheated the Bank, L.W.1 reported the matter to his superiors and after getting permission on 4.10.2006, he came to P.S. and presented a report about the fraud played by the accused. L.W.7 who received the report of L.W.1 registered the case in Cr.No. 243/2006 under Sections 420 r/w 34 IPC of Nagarampalem L&O P.S. and took up investigation. During the course of investigation L.W.7 examined the witnesses and recorded their detailed statements. During the course of investigation, L.W.7 secured a certﬁcate copy of sale deed executed by A2 in favour of Jyothsna Latha vide document No.3682/2001 dated 19.11.2001 by submitting a requisition. L.W.7 arrested both the accused on 25.12.2006 and sent them for remand. Now the accused is on bail as per the orders of the Honourable Court. During examination of L.W.6 it is learnt that Parimi Jyothsna vacated his house four years back and residing at some where else as her husband left for Gulf. L.W.7 completed investigation and filed charge sheet.” The learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that because the petitioner being the partner cannot be held responsible for pledging the documents. He further submitted that only some portion of the property in question was sold by A.2. The learned Public prosecutor submitted that not only the above, the petitioner also executed a letter to the bank in which he admitted his guilt and therefore he must be held responsible being the partner. Considering the above submissions, this Court is of the view that while exercising the jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. this Court normally will not look into merits and demerits of the charge sheet and also documents relied on by the petitioner. It is the duty of the learned Magistrate to peruse the documents ﬁled by the respondents and frame charges. The petitioner is at liberty to ﬁle discharge petition and if such a petition is ﬁled, the learned Magistrate is directed to look into the case diary and also documents to be ﬁled by the respondent herein and decide the same on merits. With the above direction, the Criminal Petition is disposed of. ----------------------------------- JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO DATED 9T H JULY, 2010. Msnr.