IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI MONDAY, THE TWENTIETH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 2135 OF 2021 Between: 1. Manchala Dharma Rao, S/o Sri Subba Rao, Hindu, Age. 60 Years, Occ. Service, R/o Door No. 18-9-3, Machavaram, Ambajipeta - 533 214, East Godavari District. ...Petltioner/A-18 AND 1. State of A.P. rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P. at Amaravathi through its SHO, Gandepalli PS, East Godavari District. 2. A. Radha Krishna Rao, Divisional Co-operative Officer, Peddapuram 533 437, East Godavari District. ...Respondents/De-facto Complainant Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to call for the records relating to FIR No.68 of 2021 of Gandepalli PS, East Godavari District and quash the against the petitioner/A-18. same 7 I.A. NO: 2 OF 2021 Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to grant stay of all further proceedings in FIR No. 68 of 2021 of Gandepalli P.S, East Godavari District, in so far as the petitioner is concerned, pending disposal of the present Criminal Petition. I.A. NO: 3 OF 2021 Between: 1. Sri A. Radha Krishna Rao, S/o. Sri Baji Rao, aged about 56 years, Occ: Divisional Co-operative Officer, Peddapuram, East Godavari District. ...Petitioner/Respondent No.2 AND 1. The State of Andhra Pradesh., rep. by its Station House Officer Gandepalli Police Station through Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P. at Amaravathi. 2. Manchala Dharma Rao, S/o Sri Subba Rao, Aged about 60 Years, Occ: Retd. Service, R/o Door No. 18-9-3, Machavaram, Ambajipeta, East Godavari District, Andhra Pradesh. ...Respondents Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to vacate the interim order dated in CRLP No.2135 of 2021. 01.04.2021 This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri N. Siva Reddy, Advocate for the Petitioner and the Public Prosecutor behalf of the Respondent No.1 and of Sri Srinivas Basava, Advocate for the Respondent No.2 on The Court made the following: APHC010132402021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3333] MONDAY ,THE TWENTIETH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSANDAND TWENTYFIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 2135/2021 Between: Manchala Dharma Rao ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND State Of A P and Others Counsel for the Petitioner/accused: 1.N SIVA REDDY Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S): 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP) 2.SRINIVAS BASAVA The Court made the following: ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S) 2 VS,J Crlp_2135_2021 ORDER: This criminal petition is filed under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code (for short “Cr.P.C.”) to quash the proceedings in F.I.R.No.68 of 2021 on the file of Gandepalli Police Station, East Godavari District. The petitioner herein is accused No. 18 and the 2"^^^ respondent herein is the defacto complainant. The 2"^ respondent vide Rc.No.864/2020- D1, dated 20.03.2021 has submitted a detailed complaint to the Station House Officer, Gandepalli Police Station, East Godavari stating that he has conducted a Statutory Inquiry under Section 51 of Andhra Pradesh Cooperative Societies Act, 1964 into the affairs of District Cooperative Central Bank Ltd., Kakinada Branch at Gandepalli with reference to the loans sanctioned and disbursed to the members of Gandepalli Primary Agricultural Cooperative Credit Society Ltd., Gandeaplli and vide inquiry report dated 16.03.2021, he found that an amount of Rs.22,07,40,067.00/- was misappropriated by the employees of the said bank in collusion with the President, Chief Executive Officer and other members of the said branch, in the guise of sanction and disbursement of loan amounts of the members of the society during the period 25.11.2017 to 20.02.2020. Pursuant to the said report, the District Collector, East Godavari District, Kakinada vide proceedings dated 18.03.2021 has reported that the accused committed offences under Section 79-A(1)(a) and Section 83B(1)(C) of the A.P.C.S. Act, 1964 for misappropriation of the funds of the District Cooperative Central Bank Ltd., Kakinada branch at Gandepalli and that the accused are liable for criminal prosecution under Section 403, 405 and 477A of Indian Penal Code. It is further stated in the complaint that the loan amounts credited in the S.B. accounts of the loanees were subsequently transferred into the personal savings accounts of delinquent Nos.3, 6, 7, 8, 9, 16 and 17. As such, the delinquents committed misappropriation of funds by tampering the statutory records required to be maintained in the District CooperativeCentral 2. 3. VSJ m Crlp_2135_2021 Bank Branch; by creating fake vouchers, bougs pattadar pass books, fake mortgage bonds etc. Stating thus, the 2^^ respondent has requested the Police to take action against the delinquents/accused. After receipt of the said complaint, the police have registered a case in Cr.No.68 of 2021 on the file of Gandepalli Police Station, East Godavari District for the offences punishable under Sections 409, 419, 420, 471, 468, 477-A read with Section 109 IPC. Requesting to quash the aforesaid case, the petitioner/accused No. 18 has filed the present petition. 4. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner herein has earlier worked as Chief Executive Officer of East Godavari District Cooperative Central Bank, Kakinada. The cooperative societies under the said branch have to transact the business from that branch and only administrative approvals will be issued by the District Office at Kakinada. The main allegation in the report of the 2 respondent is with regard to sanctioning of loans basing on fake and fabricated documents to the members of the primary agricultural cooperative society, Gandepalli and misappropriation of funds. He submitted that accused Nos.1 and 4 are the managers of the DCCB, Gandepalli and accused Nos.2 and 3 are the President and CEO of Gandepalli PACS. The accused Nos.2 and 3 allegedly prepared bogus loan files with fake and fabricated legal documents and submitted them to accused Nos.1 and 4 for sanction and recommendation through the higher authorities. Learned counsel argued that the prosecution have admitted that the petitioner has ultimately sanctioned the files basing on the recommendations of his subordinates i.e. accused Nos.11, 12, 13, 14 and 15. There is no role played by the petitioner herein in the entire episode and it is not even the case of the prosecution that the petitioner has received the misappropriated amounts. The petitioner’s role in the commission of the alleged offences in the said complaint is completely lacking and that continuation of the criminal proceedings against the petitioner herein is abuse of process of court. Hence requested to allow the petition by quashing the 34 of nd 4 VSJ Crlp_2135_2021 proceedings in F.I.R.No.68 of 2021 on the file of Gandepalli Police Station, East Godavari District. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor and learned counsel appearing for the 2""^ respondent contended that the allegations levelled against the petitioner would constitute offence punishable under Sections 409, 419, 420, 471,468, 477-A read with Section 109, 34 of IPC, and that there are specific allegations against the petitioner that he being the top most official of the District Cooperative Central Bank Ltd., Kakinada has sanctioned all the files basing on the recommendations of his subordinates. Therefore, the proceedings against the petitioner cannot be quashed at this stage. Hence, prayed to dismiss the petition. When the criminal petition came up for hearing on 01.04.2021, this Court has passed the following; 5. 6. “...In view of the directions given in Crl.P.No.2081 of 2021, the investigation may go on, however, no coercive steps including the arrest of the petitioner shall be carried out. ” 7. Having heard the submissions made by the learned counsel representing both parties and on perusal of the material available on record, the point that arises for consideration is as follows; “Whether the proceedings against the petitioners in F.I.R.No.68 of 2021 on the file of Gandepalli Police Station, East Godavari District, are liable to be quashed by exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.?” Section 482 of Cr.P.C saves the inherent powers of the High Court to make such orders as may be necessary to give effect to any order under the Code or to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise . to secure the ends of justice. It is an obvious proposition that when a Court has authority to make an order, it must have also power to carry that order into effect. If an order can lawfully be made, it must be carried out; otherwise it would be useless to make it. The authority of the Court exists for the 8. 5 VS,J Crlp_2135_2021 advancement of justice, and if any attempt is made to abuse that authority so as to produce injustice, the Court must have power to prevent that abuse. In the absence of such power the administration of law would fail to purpose for which alone the Court exists, namely to promote justice and prevent injustice. Section 482 of Cr.P.C confers safeguards existing powers possessed by the High Court. Such power has to be exercised sparingly in exceptional cases and this power is external in nature to meet the ends of justice. 9. Time and again, the scope of powers of this Court under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. were highlighted by the Apex Court in long line of perspective pronouncements, which are as follows; In “R.P. Kapur v. State of Punjab^ ”, the Apex Court laid down the following principles: (i) Where institution/continuance of criminal proceedings against may amount to the abuse of the process of the court or that the quashing of the impugned proceedings would secure the ends ofjustice; (ii) where it manifestly appears that there is a legal bar against the institution or continuance of the said proceeding, e.g. want of sanction; (Hi) where the allegations in the First Information Report or the complaint taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety, do not constitute the offence alleged; and (Iv) where the allegations constitute an offence alleged but there Is either legal evidence adduced or evidence adduced clearly or manifestly fails to prove the charge. serve the to no new powers but merely an accused no 10. Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure High Court to exercise its inherent empowers the power to prevent abuse of the process of Court. In proceedings instituted on complaint exercise of the inherent power to quash the proceedings is called for only in cases where the complaint does not disclose any offence or is frivolous vexatious or oppressive. If the ^AIR 1960 SC 866 6 VS,J Crlp_2135_2021 allegations set out in the complaint do not constitute the offence of which cognizance is taken by the Magistrate it is open to the High Court to quash the same in exercise of the inherent powers under Section 482. It is not, however, necessary that there should be a meticulous analysis of the case, before the trial to find out whether the case would end in conviction or not. The complaint has to be read as a whole. If it appears on a consideration of the allegations, in the light of the statement on oath of the complainant that ingredients of the offence/offences are disclosed, and there is no material to show that the complaint is mala fide, frivolous or vexatious. In that event there would be no justification for interference by the High Court as held by the Apex Court in “Mrs.Dhanalakshmi v. R.Prasanna Kumar^” In “State of Haryana v. Bhajan Laf”' the Apex Court considered in detail the powers of High Court under Section 482 and the power of the High Court to quash criminal proceedings or FIR. The Apex Court summarized the legal position by laying down the following guidelines to be followed by High Courts in exercise of their inherent powers to quash a criminal complaint: 11. (1) Where the allegations made in the first information report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused. (2) Where the allegations in the first information report and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code. (3) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused. (4) Where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non- cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code. 2 AIR 1990 SC 494 3 1992 Supp (1) see 335 7 VS,J Crlp_2135_2021 (5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. (6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party. (7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge. 12. Keeping in view the above principles, I would like to examine the case on hand. On a perusal of the material available on record, it can be seen that the 2"^^ respondent herein vide Rc.No.864 of 2020-D1, dated 20.03.2021 has submitted a complaint before the Police stating that he has conducted a Statutory Inquiry under Section 51 of Andhra Pradesh Cooperative Societies Act, 1964 into the affairs of the District Cooperative Central Bank Ltd., Kakinada Branch and found that an amount of Rs.22,07,40,067.00/- misappropriated by the employees of the District Cooperative Central Bank Ltd., Kakinada Branch at Gandepalli, in collusion with the President, Chief Executive Officer and other members. In the said course, the petitioner herein is said to be the top most official of the District Cooperative Central Bank Ltd., Kakinada has sanctioned all the files basing on the recommendation of his subordinates who are none other than accused Nos.11 to 15. 13. was 14. The specific allegations made against the accused in the complaint are hereunder: “4. Regarding nature of misappropriation, it is to state that the delinquents at SI.No.1 and 4 are the Managers of the Dist. Coop. Central Bank Branch Gandepalli, and delinquents SI.No. 2,3 are the President and Chief Executive Officer of the Gandepalli P.A.C.S. Ltd., Gandepalli. These two delinquents 8 VS,J Crlp_2135_2021 prepared bogus loan files with fake and fabricated legal documents, Pattadar passbooks, encumberence certificates, title deeds and submitted those fake loan filed to the delinquents No.1 and 4 for sanction and recommendation to higher authorities. Those fictitious loan files were scrutinized, field inspected and recommended for sanction by delinquents at SI.Nos. 11,12,13,14 and 15. Delinquent No. 18 who is the top most official of the Dist. Coop. Central bank Ltd., Kakinada, ultimately sanctioned all the files basing on the recommendation of his subordinates i.e., delinquents No.11,12,13,14 and 15., and released the loan amounts. 5. The sanctioned loan amounts relating to S.T. SAO files, S.T Others files, L.T (Banana) and L.T.(Land Development) files, were sent to Delinquent No.1 or disbursement through the Savings Bank Accounts of the Loanees The delinquent No.1, without observing the K.Y.C. Norms, and without following the Procedures and with the fake documents opened the S.B. Accounts of the loanees. Before crediting the loan amounts into the Savings Bank accounts, loan drawal forms with forged and fake signatures/thumb impressions of the loanees are used.” Admittedly, the petitioner herein, being the top most official of the said bank should generally be vigilant while sanctioning the files placed before him and is expected to sanction the same after taking into consideration all the necessary requirements. Merely stating that the petitioner has ultimately sanctioned the files placed before him basing on the recommendations of his subordinates does not make him honest. In the case on hand, the alleged amount found to be misappropriated is Rs.22,07,40,067.00/- which is an abundant amount and truthfulness or otherwise of the allegation, cannot be addressed to by this Court. Hence, in a case of this nature, where huge amount is involved, interference of this Court at the stage of trial would result in miscarriage of justice. It cannot either screen or assess the material on record at this stage like a mini trial to conclude that the accusation fails. A bare perusal of the complaint shows the allegations made against the petitioner require trial, before any decision as to his veracity is taken. In view of the above, as the allegations levelled against the petitioner herein are serious in nature, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the investigation at this stage. However, the Police are at liberty to 15. 16. T 9 VS,J Crlp_2135_2021 complete the investigation and file a charge sheet as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of three (3) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 17. Accordingly, this Criminal Petition is dismissed. The miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall also stand closed. Sd/- SHAIK MOHD. RAFI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SEdWN FICER 1. The Station House Officer, Gandepalli Police Station, East Godavari District. 2. One CC to Sri N Siva Reddy, Advocate [OPUC] 3. One CC to Sri Srinivasa Basava, Advocate [OPUC] 4. Two CC's to The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati [OUT] 5. Two CD Copies To, SAM sreee HIGH COURT DATED:20/01/2025 ORDER CRLP.No.2135 of 2021 ^ofanoS^ g 03APR20?5 I Current Seetidn O' DISMISSING THE CRIMINAL PETITION