Vummidi Kritish v. The Deputy Inspector General
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 18.07.2025 CORAM :
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D. BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY Crl.O.P.No.17237 of 2025 and Crl.M.P.No.10841 of 2025 Vummidi Kritish ... Petitioner/ Accused No.4 Vs.
1. The Deputy Inspector General, Central Bureau of Investigation, Economic Offences Branch, Chennai.
... 1st Respondent/ Complainant
2. The State Bank of India, Represent by its Assistant General Manager Mrs. P. Devi, State Bank of India, RACPC, Ayyapanthangal, Chennai - 600 056.
... 2nd Respondent/ Defacto Complainant For Petitioner :
Mr. Govind Chandrasekhar For Respondent 1 :
Mr. B. Mohan Special Public Prosecutor for CBI cases.
For Respondent 2 :
M/s. Nithyesh Nataraj ***** 1/6
ORDER
This petition is filed with a prayer to quash the First Information Report in Crime No.RC0692025E0002 of 2025 dated 07.03.2025 for the alleged offence under Sections 120B r/w 420, 468, 471 of IPC and 13(2) r/w 13(1)(a) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
2.
The petition is filed on the grounds that registering of the case against the petitioner was absurd and there can be no material as against this petitioner in the entire episode of obtaining the loan. But however, it is the case of the prosecution that, when the land belongs to this petitioner which already had super structures, loan has been obtained as though the land is a vacant land and the loan is being obtained for putting up the super structures in the land. 3.
According to the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner the documents, which are so far produced by the prosecution in respect thereof, would appear to be concocted and forged even for the naked eyes. 4.
That question can also be gone into by the Investigating Officer, the petitioner can very well bring those information to the notice of the Investigating Officer, who will consider the same dispassionately. 2/6
5.
While considering the question of quashing the FIR, the correctness of the allegations cannot be gone into in detail by undertaking the exercise of a mini trial. Therefore, leaving open the liberty of the petitioner to bring forth such facts to the notice of the Investigating Officer as he thinks fit, this petition cannot be entertained further.
6.
At this juncture, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is unable even to visit other countries for his business purposes and at this young age, he is made to suffer and also made a request that a direction shall be given to the respondent to complete the investigation at an early stage.
7.
The learned Special Public Prosecutor would submit that the investigation is at nascent stage and at this juncture, the time cannot be estimated. 8.
Be that as it may, a longer time can be granted to the respondent to complete the investigation in this case. In view thereof, this criminal original petition is disposed of on the following terms. (i).
The prayer to quash the FIR against the petitioner in Crime 3/6
No.RC0692025E0002 of 2025 dated 07.03.2025 shall stand negatived, giving liberty to the petitioner to bring all the facts that is pleaded before this Court to the notice of the Investigating Authority himself.
(ii).
The Investigating Authority shall endeavour to conduct the investigation, complete the same and file final report as expeditiously as possible, in any event, within a period six months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. 8.
Accordingly, this criminal original petition stands disposed of. Consequently, connected criminal miscellaneous petition stands closed. 18.07.2025 stn Index:Yes/No Speaking Order : Yes/No To:
1. The Deputy Inspector General, 4/6
Central Bureau of Investigation, Economic Offences Branch, Chennai.
2. The State Bank of India, Represent by its Assistant General Manager Mrs. P. Devi, State Bank of India, RACPC, Ayyapanthangal, Chennai - 600 056.
3. The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras.
D. BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY, J.
stn 5/6
Crl.O.P.No.17237 of 2025 and Crl.M.P.No.10841 of 2025 18.07.2025 6/6