HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.BHAVANI PRASAD Criminal Petition No.7413 of 2009 Dated : 15.09.2009 Between : Vimala Sreenivasan and another ….. Petitioners a n d The State of A.P. & another ….. Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.BHAVANI PRASAD Criminal Petition No.7413 of 2009 ORDER: Heard Sri M.Layeeq Khan, learned counsel for the petitioners, and Sri A.Ramesh, learned counsel representing the learned Public Prosecutor for the first respondent. The petitioners are facing prosecution in C.C.No.245 of 2007 on the file of the VI Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad at Medchal, on the complaint given by Deputy Registrar of Co-op. Societies and Official Liquidator of Bhagyanagar Co.op Urban Bank Limited, Hyderabad, who is arrayed as the second respondent herein. The complainant contended that after depositing the title deed of the first petitioner for obtaining a loan by the second petitioner and creating an equitable mortgage leading to the availment of the loan in the year 1983, the petitioners failed to repay the loan and also executed sale deeds to third parties in respect of the property, which is the subject of equitable mortgage. The complainant alleged an element of cheating in the sale by the petitioners and the investigation by the statutory investigating agency was stated in the charge sheet to have disclosed the sale to be dishonest for wrongful gain with an intention to cause wrongful loss to the second respondent/bank. While expressing no opinion on the truth or otherwise of the allegations made in the charge sheet, the contention of the petitioners that even ex facie no offence is constituted does not appear sustainable on the material on record as in appreciating such a contention it is only the material relied on by the prosecution that has to be referred to by the Court in a proceeding under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The petitioners further contend that the disputes are purely civil in nature and in fact civil remedies are being prosecuted against the petitioners. However, the same sequence of events may give rise to both civil and criminal liability and merely because both civil and criminal ramifications are involved in a case, the criminal liability cannot be excluded and the accused cannot be confined only to civil liability. The questions involved need to be appreciated on the evidence to be placed before it by the trial Court on merits and it cannot be the subject of a restricted enquiry under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which inherent jurisdiction is available only in rarest of rare cases. Hence, the criminal petition is dismissed. ______________________ G.BHAVANI PRASAD, J 15th September, 2009 SUR