1 APHC010414652019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3333] MONDAY ,THE TENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 3382/2019 Between: R.K.Srinivasulu ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND State Of Ap ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner/accused: 1. PERI PRABHAKAR Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S): 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP) The Court made the following: 2 ORDER The instant criminal petition under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short Cr.P.C.,) has been filed by the petitioner/accused, seeking quashment of the proceedings against him in C.C.No.631 of 2015 on the file of Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Dhone, Kurnool District. 2. The brief facts of the case are that:- (i) De facto complainant is respondent No.2 herein and petitioner is A1. A1 and A2 worked as Tahsildars in Krishnagiri Tahsildar Office. A3 and A4 also worked in the same office. While A1 and A2 were working as Tahsildars, with the active assistance of A3 and A4, they sold the land to an extent of Acs.336.00 cents to the purchasers, contravening the revenue law and procedure therein. Then the Revenue Divisional Officer, Kurnool, presented a report to the Station House Officer, Krishnagiri, against A1 to A4. (ii) Basing on the said report, the Sub Inspector of Police, Krishnagiri, registered a case in Crime No.90 of 2008 for the offences under Sections 464 and 420 of the IPC. After completion of investigation, the Police filed a charge sheet against A1 to A4 for the offences punishable under Sections 409, 468, 420 r/w 34 of the IPC before the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Dhone, Kurnool and the same was numbered as C.C.No.631 of 2015. 3. Heard Sri Peri Prabhakar, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the respondents. 3 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that departmental proceedings have been initiated against the petitioner for the allegations leveled in the present complaint. Thereafter, the Government has dropped the departmental proceedings initiated against the petitioner by issuing Memo No.48247/Vig.II(1)2008, dt.04.08.2010. As the departmental proceedings have been dropped on the ground that the charges framed against the petitioner herein have time barred, the proceedings in the present C.C. are liable to be quashed. 5. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor has not disputed the Memo No.48247/Vig.II(1)2008, dt.04.08.2010. 6. As can be seen from the material on record, a case in Crime No.90 of 2008 was registered basing on the report submitted by the then Revenue Divisional Officer, Kurnool, dt.26.08.2008. After due investigation, the Police filed charge sheet against the petitioner herein for the offence punishable under Sections 409, 468 and 420 r/w 34 of the IPC. Simultaneously the departmental proceedings have also been initiated against the petitioner for the same allegations and after some time, the departmental proceedings have been dropped vide Memo No.48247/Vig.II(1)2008, dt.04.08.2010, on the ground that the charges are time barred. The operative portion of which reads as under:- “The Spl.C.S & the Chief Commissioner of Land Administration, Hyderabad vide his letter 1st cited has informed that Sri R.K.Srinmivasulu Tahsildar (Retd), Sri Md. Haneef Tahsildars (Retd) of Krishnagiri Mandal and Sri Y. Venkateswar Reddy, VRO, 4 Sh. Yerragudi were involved in fraudulent assignment of Government land by assigning extents of land more than the actual extent containing in the concerned the S.Nos and issued Rythuwri Pattas certificates though the lands are classified as Vagu Poramboke. The Chief Commissioner of Land Administration has requested the Government to initiate action against them under rule 9 of the A.P.R.P Rules, 1980 as both the Tahsildars are retired from the service. 2. Accordingly Government, in the G.O 4th cited, have accorded sanction to initiate common disciplinary proceedings: against all the Accused Officials under rule 24 of APCS (CC&A) Rules, 1991 In the G.O. 6th cited Articles of Charges were communicated to Sri R.K.Srinivasulu Tahsildar (Retd), with a direction to submit his representation if any against the A.O.Cs framed against him. A.O.Cs were not served on him as his whereabouts are not known. 3. Government, after careful examination of the issue, based on the material available, have observe that Sri R.K.Srinivasulu retired from service on 30.06.2001 and hence the charges framed against have time- barred as per Rule 9 (2) (b) (ii) of the APRP Rules. 1980. Accordingly Government direct that further action against Sri Sri R.K.Srinivasulu, formerly MRO, Krishnagiri Mandal, Kurnool District (now retired) be dropped. 4. The Spl.C.S & the Chief Commissioner of Land Administration, Hyderabad is requested to take necessary action in the matter.” 7. It is evident from the above that the petitioner has retired from service on 30.06.2001 and as the charges framed against him are time barred, the Government has dropped the proceedings. As the departmental proceedings are dropped against the petitioner, no purpose would be served, if the trial is conducted. Since the petitioner retired from service in the year 2001 and departmental proceedings have also been dropped by the Government vide Memo No.48247/Vig.II(1)2008, dt.04.08.2010, the continuation of proceedings against the petitioner herein is nothing but an abuse of process of Court. Therefore the proceedings against the petitioner in C.C.No.631 of 2015 on the 5 file of Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Dhone, Kurnool District are liable to be quashed. 8. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. ___________________ JUSTICE V.SUJATHA Dt.10.02.2025 JLV