IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI MONDAY, THE TWENTIETH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE A: imm i§i PRESENT fJ’H HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 4354 OF 2021 Between: Mr. SK Usman, S/o. SK Galib, Aged about 45 years, Occ. Senior Accountant, STO Atmakuru, Nellore District, Andhra Pradesh, R/o. D.No. 9-168, Kaladhar Complex, Teachers Colony, Venkatagiri, Nellore Dist-7., Andhra Pradesh. ...Petitioner/Accused AND 1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Represented by Public Prosecutor,High Court of Andhra Pradesh, High Court Buildings at Nelapadu, Guntur District, Andhra Pradesh. 2. Pettella Kumaraswamy, S/o Penctaaiah, Aged about 49 years, Occ. STO Atmakuru, Nellore District, Andhra Pradesh R/o D.No.24-1-443, Mulapet, Nellore City, Nellore District, Andhra Pradesh. ...Respondent Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C is filed 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 in connection with C.C.No.174 of 2019 in FIR No.112 of 2015 on the file of the SHO PS Atmakuru, Nellore District, Andhra Pradesh and to quash the same. I.A. NO: 2 OF 2021 Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C is filed praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to stay all further proceedings in C.C.No.174 of 2019 in FIR No.112 of 2015 on the file of the SHO P.S Atmakuru, Nellore District, Andhra Pradesh. This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri A Radha Krishna, Advocate for the Petitioner and the Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No.1 and of Sri Ashok Returi, Advocate for the Respondent No.2. The Court made the following: / / 1 APHC010256942021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3333] MONDAY,THE TWENTIETHDAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 4354/2021 Between; ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED Mr. Sk Usman AND ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S) The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others Counsel for the Petitioner/accused: 1.ARADHAKRISHNA Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S): 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP) 2.ASHOK RETURI The Court made the following: 7 / 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 No.2, seeking quashment of the proceedings against him in C.C.No.174 of 2019 on the file of the Court of Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Atmakur. 2. The brief facts of the case are as follows:- (i) Petitioner herein is Accused No.2. Accused No.1, who is Head Mistress at Z.P.Girls High School, Atmakuru, Nellore District and accused No.2, who is working as a Senior Assistant and in-charge STO, Sub Treasury Office, Atmakuru, having mala-fide intention conspired with each other. misappropriated the pay and allowances, leave salaries and other amounts pertaining to the teaching and non-teaching staff of the education department to a tune of Rs.50,93,640/- by drawing the amounts using their conferred powers by adopting improper methods and thereby misappropriated the Government money and cheated the victims without crediting the amounts to their individual accounts. (ii) The Director of Treasuries and Accounts (FAC) through his proceedings dated 30.08.2018 passed the following orders with respect to the six charges framed against petitioner/accused No.2 that the petitioner/accused No.2 shall be imposed with a punishment of stoppage of three increments with cumulative effect which will effect on pension as Rule 9 of A.P.Civil Service (C.C.&A) Rules 1991 and stoppage of three annual grade increments with cumulative effect on pension under Rule 14 r/w Clause(v) of V V \ 3 \ Rule 9 of A.P Civil Service (C.C.&A) Rules 1991 and the suspension period from 18.05.2015 to 17.09.2015 of the petitioner/accused No.2 shall be treated as not on duty as per Sub-Rule (4) and (5) of F.R.54. (iii) As per the request made by the Director of Treasuries and Accounts vide Memo No.G2/2768/2015, dt.12.06.2015, respondent No.2 lodged a complaint before the Police and the same is registered vide Crime No.112 of 2015, dt.07.08.2015 under Sections 120-B, 406, 420 r/w 34 of the IPC. Heard Sri A.Radha Krishna, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor representing the State/respondent No.1 and Sri Ashok Raturi, learned counsel for respondent No.2. 3. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is falsely implicated in the present case under the guise of a complaint lodged by respondent No.2, who is working as STO and that he has nothing to do with the said offences. The petitioner worked as in-charge STO as and when respondent No.2 is being absent and he was never involved in mal-practice and misappropriation as alleged. The role of the petitioner, as an in-charge STO, is limited to processing bill applications received from government employees of various departments. Upon receiving those applications, the petitioner verifies the details under Form-47 by tallying the enclosures, and Annexures 1 and 2. After due verification, the processed applications are forwarded to the concerned bank for disbursement to the amounts. / 4 respective employees' individual accounts. The Head mistress, who is arrayed as accused No.1 is responsible for the acts of misappropriation of funds. He further submitted that as per the Memo No.G2/2768/2015, dated 5. 12.06.2015 issued by the Director of Treasuries and Accounts, the Deputy Director, District Treasury, Nellore is the competent authority to be the complainant but the respondent No.2 though is not a competent authority has made the report which is beyond his domain. He further submits that accused No.1 in her letter dated 10.07.2015, addressed to the Regional Director of School Education, Guntur, admitted her guilt in wrongly sanctioning the amount and withdrawing it into her personal account. 6. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 would submit that the petitioner is the in-charge STO, Sub Treasury Office, Atmakur. There are specific allegations against the petitioner and accused No.1. The departmental enquiry was conducted and the petitioner was imposed punishment of stoppage of three increments with cumulative effect. The truth, or otherwise, of the said allegations will be revealed during the course of the trial. There are no grounds to quash the proceedings against the petitioners, at this stage. Hence, prayed to dismiss the petition. 7. Having heard both sides, now the point that would emerge for determination is: Whether there are any Justifiable grounds for quashment of proceedings against the petitioner/accused No.2 in C.C.No.174 of 2019 on the file of the Court of Judicial 5 Magistrate of First Class, Atmakur, for the offences under Sections 120-B, 406, 420 r/w 34 of the IPC? A bare perusal of Section 482 makes it clear that the Code envisages that 8. inherent powers of the High Court are not limited or affected so as to make orders as may be necessary; (i) to give effect to any order under the Code or, (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or, otherwise (iii) to secure ends ofjustice. A court while sitting in Section 482 jurisdiction is not functioning as a court of appeal or a court of revision. It must exercise its powers to do real and substantial justice, depending on the facts and circumstances of the case. These powers must be invoked for compelling reasons of abuse of process of law or glaring injustice, which are against sound principles of criminal jurisprudence. 9. Specific circumstances warranting the invocation of the provision must be present. To identify these specific circumstances, it is essential to discuss some precedents. The decision rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in State of Haryana and others v. Bhajanlal and others^ is considered as the guiding torch in the application of Section 482. At paras 102 and 103, the circumstances are spelt out as follows : {£ 102. In the backdrop of the interpretation of the various relevant provisions of the Code under Chapter XIV and of the principles of law enunciated by this Court in a series of decisions relating to the exercise of the extraordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code which we have extracted and reproduced above, we give the following categories of cases by way of illustration wherein such power could be exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of Justice, though it may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently channelised and inflexible 1 AIR 1992 SC 604 6 guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised. (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 uncontroverted 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 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. } 7 103. We also give a note of caution to the effect that the power of quashing a criminal proceeding should be exercised very sparingly and with circumspection and that too in the rarest of rare cases; that the court will not be justified in embarking upon an enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the FIR or the complaint and that the extraordinary or inherent powers do not confer an arbitrary Jurisdiction on the court to act according to its whim or caprice." It is relevant to refer to Sections 406 and 420 IPC which read as follows: 10. Whoever, being in any manner entrusted with property, or with any dominion over property, dishonestly misappropriates or converts to his own use that property, or dishonestiy uses or disposes of that property in violation of any direction of law prescribing the mode in which such trust is to be discharged, or of any legal contract, express or implied, which he has made touching the discharge of such trust, or wilfully suffers any other person so to do, commits “criminal breach of trust. ” 405. Criminal breach of trust. it 406. Punishment for criminal breach of trust.—Whoever commits criminal breach of trust shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both. ” 415. Cheating.—Whoever, by deceiving any person, fraudulently or dishonestly induces the person so deceived to deliver any property to any person, or to consent that any person shall retain any property, or intentionally induces the person so deceived to do or omit to do anything which he would not do or omit if he were not so deceived, and which act or omission causes or is likely to cause damage or harm to that person in body, mind, reputation or property, is said to “cheat”. 420. Cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property.—Whoever cheats and thereby dishonestly induces the person deceived to deliver any property to any person, or to make, alter or destroy the whole or any part of a valuable security, or anything which is signed or sealed, and which is capable of being converted into a valuable security, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shail also be liable to fine.” / 8 Coming to the offence under Section 406 IPC is concerned, a letter 11. dated 10.07.2015 addressed to the Regional Director of School Education by accused No.1 shows that the amounts were credited to the account of accused No.1, who is the DDO, but not into the account of accused No.2 which discloses that accused No.2 was not entrusted with any property. 12. Further, the offence under Section 420 IPC is concerned, the ingredients of 420 IPC tells about the dishonest inducement by any individual person. In this case, no other material evidence to prove that the respondent No.2 has dishonestly induced to deliver any property to them, except the complaint of the respondent No.2. Therefore, the ingredients necessary to constitute the offence of cheating and criminal breach of trust are not made out and consequently, no offence under Sections 406 and 420 IPC are made out. In addition to that, on a perusal of letter dated 10.07.2015 addressed to 13. the Regional Director of School Education by accused No.1, it can be seen that the surrender leave amount was drawn through crediting to DDO account and subsequently withdrawn from the DDO account and disbursed to the concerned teachers under proper acknowledgment on 20.07.2014 by accused No.1. Hence, it can be understood that the amounts were credited to the account of accused No.1, who is the DDO but not into the account of accused No.2. Even otherwise, as per memo No.G2/2768/2015 dated 12.06.2015 issued by the Director of Treasuries and Accounts, the Deputy Director, 9 \ District Treasury, SPSR Nellore District, is competent to be the complainant. Contrary to the same, respondent No.2 lodged a complaint without any authority. 14. In view of the foregoing discussion, continuation of the criminal proceedings against the petitioner would be nothing but abuse of process of law. 15. In such a case, this Court feels it appropriate to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.174 of 2019 on the file of the Court of Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Atmakur, as against the petitioner/accused No.2 herein. 16. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. Sd/- B CHITTI JOSEPH ASSISTANT REGISTRY Officer /' //TRUE COPY// S To 1. The Station House Officer, Atmakur Police Station, SPSR Nellore District. 2. One CC to Sri A Radha Krishna, Advocate [OPUC] 3. One CC to Sri Ashok Returi, Advocate [OPUC] 4. Two CCs to Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh [OUT] 5. Three CD Copies Pmg sree u I HIGH COURT DATED;20/01/2025 ORDER CRLP.No.4354 of 2021 WSfANDH^ i 2 8 FEB 2025 S ^ Current Section ALLOWING THE CRLP