APHC010150032021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3333] MONDAY ,THE TWENTIETH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 2368/2021 Between: H. S. Ganapathi ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner/accused: 1. K JYOTHI PRASAD Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S): 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP) 2. SRINIVAS BASAVA The Court made the following: 2 VS,J Crlp_2368_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. 2. The petitioner herein is accused No.4 and the 2nd respondent herein is the defacto complainant. The 2nd 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. 3. 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 Cooperative Central 3 VS,J Crlp_2368_2021 Bank Branch; by creating fake vouchers, bougs pattadar pass books, fake mortgage bonds etc. Stating thus, the 2nd 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, 34 of 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 was falsely implicated in the present case only on the ground that he worked as a manager during his tenure. But, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted a copy of the proceedings dated 05.12.2017 of the Chief Executive Officer, District Cooperative Central Bank Ltd., Kakinada through which the petitioner herein was directed to take charge as Assistant Manager of Annavaram branch and accordingly, on 12.12.2017 the petitioner was relieved from the said branch. As per the complaint, the said amount was misappropriated during 25.11.2017 to 20.02.2020 whereas the petitioner herein was relieved from the said branch on 12.12.2017. As such, implication of the petitioner in the present case is nothing but to harass him. Even assuming that the alleged offences in the complaint are taken as truth, they still do not constitute any offence much less the alleged offences under Section 409, 419, 420, 471, 468, 477-A read with 109 and 34 of IPC. An entire reading of the complaint clearly exhibits that there is no specific role attributed against the petitioner herein except stating that the loan filed were submitted to him and accused No.1. 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 proceedings in F.I.R.No.68 of 2021 on the file of Gandepalli Police Station, East Godavari District. 4 VS,J Crlp_2368_2021 5. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor and learned counsel appearing for the 2nd 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. Therefore, the proceedings against the petitioner cannot be quashed at this stage. Hence, prayed to dismiss the petition. 6. When the criminal petition came up for hearing on 16.04.2021, this Court has passed the following: “…In view of the directions given in Crl.P.No.2081 of 20201, the investigation may go on in Crime No.68 of 2021 of Gandepalli Police Station, East Godavari District, 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.?” 8. 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 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 serve the purpose for which alone the Court exists, namely to promote justice and to 5 VS,J Crlp_2368_2021 prevent injustice. Section 482 of Cr.P.C confers no new powers but merely 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 Punjab1”, the Apex Court laid down the following principles: (i) Where institution/continuance of criminal proceedings against an accused may amount to the abuse of the process of the court or that the quashing of the impugned proceedings would secure the ends of justice; (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; (iii) 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 no legal evidence adduced or evidence adduced clearly or manifestly fails to prove the charge. 10. Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure empowers the High Court to exercise its inherent 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 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 1AIR 1960 SC 866 6 VS,J Crlp_2368_2021 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 Kumar2” 11. In “State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal3” 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: (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. (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 2 AIR 1990 SC 494 3 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 7 VS,J Crlp_2368_2021 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. 13. On a perusal of the material available on record, it can be seen that the 2nd 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/- was 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. 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 Sl.No.1 and 4 are the Managers of the Dist. Coop. Central Bank Branch Gandepalli, and delinquents Sl.No. 2,3 are the President and Chief Executive Officer of the Gandepalli P.A.C.S. Ltd., Gandepalli. These two delinquents 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 Sl.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. 8 VS,J Crlp_2368_2021 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.” 15. In the case on hand, the petitioner herein has worked as Manager of the District Cooperative Central Bank Ltd., Gandepalli and is alleged to have sanctioned the loan files prepared by accused Nos.2 and 3 with fake and fabricated legal documents, pattadar passbooks, encumberence certificates, title deeds and that he has recommended the same to higher authorities. But, on a perusal of the proceedings dated 05.12.2017 of the Chief Executive Officer, District Cooperative Central Bank Ltd., Kakinada it can be seen that the petitioner herein was relieved from the duties of Manager of the bank at Kakinada from 12.12.2017 itself and was directed to report before Annavaram Branch. In the complaint itself it was stated that upon enquiry, it was found that an amount of Rs.22,07,40,067.00/- was found to be 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 of the Gandepalli Primary Agricultural Cooperative Credit Society, during the period 25.11.2017 to 20.02.2020; whereas the petitioner herein was relieved as Manager of the said bank on 12.12.2017, as such, he cannot be alleged to have contributed his role in misappropriating the said amount when he was not functioning as manager during the said period. 16. Therefore, upon consideration of the relevant facts and circumstances of the case and in the absence of any specific role attributed to the petitioner herein, it would be unjust if the petitioner is forced to go through the tribulations of a trial, i.e., general and omnibus allegations cannot manifest in a situation where an irrelevant person was implicated. It has been highlighted by the Apex court in varied instances that a criminal trial leading to 9 VS,J Crlp_2368_2021 an eventual acquittal also inflicts severe scars upon the accused, and such an exercise must therefore be discouraged. If the criminal proceedings are continued against the petitioner herein, it would amount to abuse of process of law. As per the principle No.1 of the principles laid down in R.P. Kapur v. State of Punjab (1st Supra) if continuance of criminal proceedings against an accused may amount to the abuse of the process of the court or that the quashing of the impugned proceedings would secure the ends of justice, the Court can exercise power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. and quash the proceedings. Applying the said principle to the present facts of the case and keeping in view the above discussion, I find that it is a fit case to quash the proceedings. 17. Accordingly, this Criminal Petition is allowed and the proceedings in FIR.No.68 of 2021 on the file of Gandepalli Police Station, East Godavari District are hereby quashed against the petitioner herein. The miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall also stand closed. __________________ JUSTICE V.SUJATHA 20.01.2025 Gss