IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD WEDNESDAY, THE SEVENTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N.RAVI SHANKAR CRIMINAL PETITION NOs.6849 AND 1845 OF 2009 Between in Crl.P.No.6849 of 2009: M/s. BGR Jewellers Pvt.Ltd., .... PETITIONER A N D APITCO Limited and another. …RESPONDENTS Between in Crl.P.No.1845 of 2009: B.Sadananda Murthy and others. .... PETITIONERS A N D APITCO Limited and another. …RESPONDENTS THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N. RAVI SHANKAR CRIMINAL PETITION NOs.6849 AND 1845 OF 2009 COMMON ORDER: The petitioners in Crl.P.No.1845 of 2009 are A.1 to A.3 and the petitioner in Crl.P.No.6849 of 2009 is A.4 in C.C.No.197 of 2007 on the file of the Court of XIV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad (trial Court). They filed these two petitions for quashing the aforesaid criminal case. As they arise out of the same case they are being disposed of by this common order. 2. The circumstances which led to filing of these petitions should be noted and herein afterwards petitioners, for convenience are referred to, as A.1 to A.4. 3. The above case is filed by C.B.I. The offence alleged against A.1 to A.4 are those punishable under Section 120-B and Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, ‘I.P.C’) i.e., criminal conspiracy and the criminal conspiracy to commit the offence of cheating. The victim of cheating is stated to be the State Bank of Hyderabad (S.B.H), Shantinagar Branch, Hyderabad. It is stated that A.4 is a company called M/s B.G.R Jewellers Pvt. Ltd. and A.1 and A.2 are stated to be Managing Director and Director respectively of A.4 Company. A.2 is said to be an architect and valuer. The other details are not necessary. 4. The substance of the accusation made against A.1, A.3 and A.4 is that earlier they took loan by way of cash credit facility to an extent of Rs.143.80 lakhs from S.B.H by mortgaging certain properties to the S.B.H. It is stated that one of the properties offered as security is an extent of Ac.6-10 cents of agricultural land in survey No.944 at Chintalpudi Village of West Godavari District. It is further alleged that A.1, A.3 and A.4 showed the value of the said land at Rs.165.33 lakhs while its value was in fact only Rs.21.73 lakhs and the allegation against A.2 is that being a valuer he actively colluded with the other accused and showed a higher value for that property in order to cheat the bank. A.1, A.3 and A.4 failed to repay the loan or cash credit facility and the Bank could even from the sale of Ac.6-10 cents recover only about Rs.21.00 lakhs or so, but not the value shown by accused. The allegation is that A.1 to A.4 thus cheated the bank. 5. The charge sheet reads that initially the C.B.I. police who took up investigation on their own source of information has shown four officials of the S.B.H also as accused, but ultimately deleted them and has charge sheeted only A.1 to A.4 who are non-officials and businessmen. It may then be noted that ultimately the concern M/s. B.G.R Jewellers Pvt. Ltd. came to be acquired by A.P. Industrial and Technical Consultancy Organization Limited ( for short, ‘APITCO’) (i.e. first respondent herein) under the provisions of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 along with its underlying securities from the S.B.H. under an assignment agreement, dated 28.03.2005. 6. It is the case of the petitioners that APITCO issued letter on 28.06.2006, whereunder it has acknowledged that it has received the entire amount due from M/s. B.G.R Jewellers Pvt.Ltd. and released the said concern and also four others namely Mr.B.Sadananda Murthy (A.1), Mr.B.Srinivasa Raghuveer (A.3), Mr.B.Venkata Raju and Smt B.Kasturi from all the liabilities and also released the mortgaged properties. This quash petition is filed on the basis of this letter, dated 28.06.2006 of APITCO whreunder all the payments due from the accused are said to have been made. The plea of the petitioners is that since APITCO has released them from all liabilities i.e., Civil and Criminal, the case should be quashed. 7. It may be noted that in this petition, the first respondent, is APITCO. The said first respondent’s Managing Director, by name Srinivas, is said to have filed an affidavit stating that the matter has been compromised and therefore, he has no objection for quashing the case. This is also confirmed by Sri T.Bala Mohana Reddy, learned counsel appearing for the first respondent. In fact, earlier this Court by its order, dated 24.04.2009 allowed the criminal petition No.1845 of 2009 basing upon the said compromise. However, subsequently the C.B.I made a representation for recall of the said order on the ground that it was not given opportunity at the time of passing of the said order. Therefore, this Court again on 08.06.2009, recalled the said order on the ground that C.B.I. was not given opportunity. 8. Heard Sri T.Pradyumna Kumar Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners; Sri P.Kesava Rao, the learned special Standing Counsel for C.B.I. for respondent No.2; Sri T.Bala Mohan Reddy, learned counsel appearing for first respondent and Sri Addepalli Suryanaraya, learned Standing Counsel for State Bank of Hyderabad. 9. It may be noted that the case was registered by C.B.I and it filed charge sheet against these four accused. The gist of the offence is all the four accused have cheated the S.B.H by producing the title deeds showing a higher value for the property in question and they drew large amounts as loan from State Bank of Hyderabad. Sri T.Pradyumna Kumar Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners says that since the unit has been ultimately acquired by APITCO and that institution has no objection for compromise, the case should be quashed. This is opposed by the learned special Standing Counsel for C.B.I. and also Sri Addepalli Suryanarayana, learned Standing Counsel for S.B.H. 10. The contention of petitioners’ counsel cannot be accepted for these reasons. It may be noted that a perusal of the entire charge sheet would disclose that the victim of cheating is S.B.H. It is of course true that the S.B.H ultimately made over M/s. B.G.R. Jewellers Pvt. Ltd. to APITCO and the accused might have paid the amounts to that unit. That does not however, place APITCO in the place of victim and therefore, it cannot be said to have any right to compromise the matter and say no objection for acquittal of the petitioners. It is the specific version of S.B.H in its written submissions that it has suffered a loss of Rs.93.00 lakhs because of the over valued documents furnished by M/s. B.G.R Jewellers and A.1 and A.3 and who thereby cheated it. Even in the course of arguments, the learned counsel for the petitioners admitted that the victim is S.B.H, but his contention that since APITCO has no objection for withdrawal of case the prosecution can be quashed. There is no force in his contention. It may be noted that just because the unit is made over to APITCO, the latter cannot be said to have become the aggrieved person or victim of the offence of cheating and therefore, prosecution cannot be quashed on the ground that APITCO has no objection even though the offence under Section 420 of IPC is compoundable. It may be noted that the offence of cheating is shown as compoundable in the table under Section 320(2) Cr.P.C. only by the person cheated. As APITCO is not the person cheated it follows that its consent for quashing the case cannot help the petitioner. It is only the SBH which is said to have been cheated that can compound the offence. This is the only point raised and it goes against the petitioners. 11. In the course of arguments, the learned counsel for the petitioners pointed out that the bank officials are also involved in the matter, but they have been ultimately deleted by the C.B.I. from the case and only the petitioners are being harassed. This controversy is outside the scope of the petition. The averments in the charge sheet, do disclose the offence punishable under Section 420 of I.P.C and also the offence of criminal conspiracy to commit the same. 12. In the above circumstances, the plea of the petitioners cannot be accepted. It is now well settled that even payment of amount involved in the offence cannot be a ground to exonerate the offenders from an offence. Having regard to this principle and the aforesaid reasons, I am of the opinion that there are no merits in both these petitions and they are accordingly dismissed. At the end the learned counsel for the petitioner made a request for dispensing with the appearance of petitioners before trial Court for every date of hearing. That request is rejected but petitioners may move trial Court for the same. _____________________ N.RAVI SHANKAR, J DECEMBER 07, 2011. YVL THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N.RAVI SHANKAR CRIMINAL PETITION NOs.6849 AND 1845 OF 2009 07.12.2011 YVL