THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJU CRIMINAL PETITION No.3353 of 2009 BETWEEEN: 1. M.Pratap Reddy, S/o. M.Anantha Reddy & 4 others. … Petitioners/Accused Nos.2 to 6 AND 1. The State, through SPE/CBI … Respondent/Complainant HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL PETITION No.3353 of 2009 ORDER: The petitioners 1 to 5/A2 to A6 are accused of offen punishable under Sections 420, 468, 471 IPC and Sec 13(2)/13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 along with others in CC.No.12 of 2002 on the file of Special Judge for C cases, Hyderabad. A3 is wife of A2. A4 is brother of A2. A5 brother-in-law of A2. A6 is brother-in-law of A2 and A4. A2 proprietor of M.Pratap Reddy Poultry Farm. A3 is proprietrix M.Latha Reddy Poultry Farm. A4 is proprietor of Ratna Poultry Fa A5 is proprietor of Sai Poultry Farm. A6 is proprietor of Y.Ram Red Poultry Farm. A2 to A6 borrowed money from Andhra Bank, Ba Amberpet Branch, Hyderabad for the purpose of their respec poultry farming businesses to the extent of Rs.23.77Lakhs, Rs.21 Lakhs, Rs.21.84 Lakhs, Rs.20.00Lakhs and Rs.24.33La respectively. A2 to A6 furnished collateral securities by way landed and house properties for the said loans. 2. A1 was the then Branch Manager, Andhra Ba Baghamberpet Branch, Hyderabad. A8 to A10 are the then R Development Officers in the same bank during various periods. A a Chartered Accountant by profession at Hyderabad. A11 is Office Assistant of A7. A1 and A7 to A11 are not figuring petitioners herein. The petitioners 1 to 5/A2 to A6 are seeking un Section 482 Cr.P.C. quashing of proceedings in CC.No.12 of 20 pending in the lower Court. It is alleged that in pursuance conspiracy among A1 to A11, A2 to A6 submitted false and bog quotations and invoices to Andhra Bank for purchase of differ materials used in poultry farming in the names of non-existing pou farms and that A1 and A8 to A10 who are supposed to verify the e user of loan amount, conspired with the loanees and released loan amounts and thereby defrauded the bank to the extent Rs.109.94 Lakhs and interest thereon and that A7 with assistance of A11 aided A2 to A6 in preparing false loan docume in his office and thereby abetted the crime. As the matter n stands, there is no dispute that trial of the case in the lower Cou half way through and it is almost in the last stages of examin prosecution witnesses. 3. Now, the petitionrs/A2 to A6 have come up with petition on the ground that O.A.Nos.553, 557, 558, 559 and 560 2001 were filed by the bank in Debt Recovery Tribunal and obtain decrees therein and that the bank also filed respective recov petitions against A2 to A6 and that subsequently A2 to approached the bank under one time settlement scheme un which the bank agreed for full and final settlement for Rs.1 crore lakhs as against decreetal amounts totalling Rs.1crore 95 lakhs a that in pursuance of the said one time settlement scheme, A2 to paid Rs.1crore 10 Lakhs to the bank who filed full satisfaction me and closed the matter and that therefore, continuation of the crim proceedings against A2 to A6 is nothing but abuse of process of l The petitioners’ counsel placed reliance on Nikhil Merchant Central Bureau of Investigation[1] and Central Bureau Investigation Vs. Duncans Agro Industries Limited, Calcutta[2 the Supreme Court in support of his contention. It is also contend that basing on Nikhil Merchant(1 supra), this Court rendered decision on 17.03.2009 in Criminal Petition No.875 of 2009 and same was confirmed by the Supreme Court on 15.01.2010 in Spe Leave Petition (Criminal) 542 of 2010. On the other hand, Special Public Prosecutor for CBI placing reliance on Manoj Shar Vs. State[3], Central Bureau of Investigation Vs.A. Ravi Shan Prasad[4] and Rumi Dhar (SMT) Vs. State of West Bengal[5] of Supreme Court contended that compromise in the civil matter can be a ground for exercising inherent power of this Court under Sec 482 Cr.P.C. to quash criminal proceedings against the loane particularly when bank officials are facing charges under Sec 13(1)(d)/13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 basing the same cause of action of sanction of loans to A2 to A6 with discharging their duties as per Rules and that quashing of crim proceedings against A2 to A6 may lead to adverse result for prosecution as against the other accused who are facing trial alo with A2 to A6. Placing reliance on A.Ravi Shankar Prasad supra) and Rumi Dhar (5 supra) of the Supreme Court a distinguishing Nikhil Merchant (1 supra) of the Supreme Court, Court rendered a decision on 17.12.2009 in Criminal Petition Nos of 2009 and batch negativing plea of the accused for quashing proceedings in criminal cases on the ground of compromise in corresponding civil matters basing on the same cause of action. 4. All the above five decisions mentioned supra w rendered by the benches of the Supreme Court consisting of Learned Judges each. It is stated that a reference on this subjec pending in the Supreme Court for decision by a bench consisting three Learned Judges. In the circumstances and having regard the above case law on the subject, I do not propose to exerc inherent power of this Court under Section 482 CR.P.C. for quash the criminal proceedings pending against the petitioners/A2 to A6 the lower Court. At the same time, the lower Court will expeditiou dispose of the criminal case and naturally having regard to the abo case law of the Supreme Court on the subject. 5. It is stated by the petitioners’ counsel that A5 is now resident of another state and that indulgence may be shown dispense with his appearance in the lower Court during trial. 6. In the result, the Criminal Petition is dismissed. Howev the lower Court is directed to dispense with presence of the petitioner/A5 during trial of the case, except on the day of examination under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and on the date pronouncement of judgment. _____________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU, J Dated: 25.02.2011 ysk THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL PETITION No.3353 of 2009 DATED: 25.02.2011 ysk THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJU PD JUDGMENT IN CRIMINAL PETITION No.3353 of 2009 [1] 2008(2) ALD (Crl.) 591 (SC) [2] AIR 1996 Supreme Court 2452 [3] 2008(2) ALD (CRL)923(SC) [4] 2009(6)SEC 351 [5] 2009(6)Supreme Court cases 364