'Prima Facie Case Made Out': AP High Court Refuses To Quash Perjury, Cheating Case Against Retired Bank Manager Over ₹50 Lakh Debt Dispute

The Andhra Pradesh High Court has refused to quash criminal proceedings arising from a dispute over Rs. 50 lakh borrowed by a retired bank manager and his wife against a promissory note and mortgage of three title deeds.

The Court made the observation while refusing to quash criminal proceedings arising from a complaint alleging perjury, filing of a false case, cheating and fraudulent prevention of recovery of debt.

A Single Judge Bench of Justice Subhendu Samanta dismissed the petition filed by the retired bank manager and his father-in-law. They were accused, along with the bank manager's wife, of colluding to file a false case to delay the cheque dishonour proceedings initiated by the complainant's mother.

The Court observed:

“Admittedly the private complainant was lodged by A2 and it is also admitted that A1 and A3 are the close relatives of A2. This Court, at the time of quashing the said private complaint, has come to an opinion that the private complaint was lodged only to frustrate earlier criminal proceedings filed by mother of 3rd respondent under Section 138 of N.I.Act. Admittedly under Section 138 of N.I.Act, 1st petitioner herein was A1. The 1 st petitioner and A2 have jointly signed a cheque which was dishonored and subject matter of earlier criminal litigation. It further appears that the petitioners 1 and 2 have made a statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C., before police during investigation of said false case. It is further admitted fact that the properties in question, which are the subject matter of civil suit filed by the mother of 3 rd respondent, was disposed of in the name of A3 only for the purpose of defrauding future claim.”

The dispute between the parties originated from a financial transaction. The mother of the complainant had advanced Rs. 50 lakh to the retired bank manager and his wife for their real estate investment and business. They allegedly agreed to repay the amount with interest and executed a promissory note and other documents in connection with the transaction.

When the amount was not repaid, the retired bank manager and his wife allegedly issued a cheque for Rs. 25 lakh towards partial discharge of the debt. The cheque was dishonoured. This led to proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.

Thereafter, the bank manager's wife filed a private complaint against the complainant and his parents. She alleged that they had trespassed into her house and threatened her. She further alleged that they obtained her signatures on blank stamp papers and collected blank cheques and original land documents. The police investigated the complaint and filed a charge sheet.

Thereafter, the complainant and his parents approached the High Court seeking quashing of the criminal proceedings arising from the private complaint filed by the bank manager's wife. A coordinate Bench of the High Court allowed the petition and held that the allegations made in her complaint were “impossible and false.”

Following this order, the complainant filed a complaint under Section 340 CrPC before the Magistrate. He alleged that the bank manager, his wife and the bank manager's father-in-law had committed offences including perjury, filing a false case, cheating and criminal conspiracy. The Magistrate took cognizance of the complaint and summoned the accused.

The bank manager and his father-in-law then approached the High Court seeking quashing of those proceedings. They primarily argued that they had never made any statement on oath before a competent Court. They therefore contended that the basic requirement for initiating perjury proceedings was absent.

The High Court, however, rejected this contention at the stage of quashing. It noted that the complaint was not only a case of perjury. It also contained allegations of foisting a false case under Section 211 IPC, cheating, misappropriation of properties and dishonestly or fraudulently preventing the debt from being available to creditors.

The Court also considered the previous litigation between the parties. It noted that the retired bank manager and his wife had jointly signed the dishonoured cheque.

The Court further noted the allegation that the properties which were the subject matter of the civil suit had been disposed of in the name of the retired bank manager's father-in-law, allegedly “only for the purpose of defrauding future claim” of the complainant's mother.

The Court held that the allegations in the complaint, if taken at their face value, prima facie made out a case against the accused.

Against this background, the High Court held that it could not conclude, at the stage of considering the quashing petition, that the allegations did not prima facie constitute any offence.

It also found that the criminal proceedings had been initiated by a competent jurisdictional Court. It found that the reasons for initiating the complaint had been discussed in the complaint itself. Therefore, it could not be said, at this stage, that the complaint had been lodged with a mala fide intention.

The Court therefore declined to quash the proceedings.

“Under the above circumstances and after thorough perusal of the entire complaint, it appears to me that this is not a fit case to exercise inherent power of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C/Section 528 BNSS to quash” the proceedings, the Court held.

The criminal petition was accordingly dismissed as devoid of merit. There was no order as to costs.

Case Title: G.V. Srinivasa Rao & Anr. v. State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors.Case No.: Criminal Petition No. 6992 of 2025Counsel for Petitioners: D. Kodandarami ReddyCounsel for Respondents: Public Prosecutor; Party-in-person

Click Here To Read/Download Order