c* IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI TUESDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE IS!' PRESENT HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA V? O CRIMINAL PETITION No.7510 of 2019 Between: Kopisetty Nagaraju, S/o. Bala Chinta Mani Kumar, Aged about 44 years, Occ: Former Executive Officer, Sri Ramalingeswara Swamy temple, Nandigama, R/o. Flat No. 102, Sri Venkateswara Residency Pullaiah Street, near SBI, Ramavarappadu, Vijayawada Rural, Krishna District. ...Petitioner/Accused AND 1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Represented by its Public Prosecutor High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravathi. ...Respondent 2. Sirapurapu Hema Latha Devi, W/o. Siva Nageswara Rao, Aged about 42 years, Occ: l/c Executive Officer, Sri Ramalingeshwara Swamy Temple, Nandigama, R/o Vijayawada, Krishna District. ...Respondent/Defacto Complainant Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition the High Court may be pleased to quash the proceedings praying that in the in CC # No.481/2018 on the file of the Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate Nandigama, Krishna District. I.A. NO. 2 OF 2019 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 all further proceedings including appearance of the petitioner in C.C.No.481/2018 on the file of the Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Nandigama, Krishna District pending disposal of the criminal petition. This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri P. Nagendra Reddy, Advocate for the Petitioner and the Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No.1 and none appeared for the Respondent No.2. The Court made the following: { APHC010410762019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3333] TUESDAY THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 7510/2019 Between: ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED Kopisetty Nagaraju AND ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S) The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others Counsel for the Petitioner/accused: 1.P NAGENDRA REDDY Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S): 1,PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP) The Court made the following: 2 VS,J, Crlp_7510_2019 ORDER: This criminal petition is filed under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code (for short “Cr.P.C.”) to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.481 of 2018 on the file of Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Nandigama, Krishna District. 2. The petitioner herein is the sole accused and the 2"^ respondent herein is the defacto complainant. The 2'^^ respondent herein has addressed a complaint to the Station House Officer, Nandigama Town and Circle, Krishna District stating that the Commissioner, Endowments Department, Gollapudi, vide memo dated 08.08.2017 has directed him to file a criminal case against the petitioner herein; that basing on the report submitted by the Deputy Commissioner, Endowments Department, Kakinada the Commissioner has confirmed the sale of the land belonging to Sri Ramalingeswara Swamyvari Devasthanam, Nandigama town, Krishna District in favour of the highest bidders. Vide letter dated 24.11.2016, the Assistant Commissioner has submitted the inspection report to the Commissioner regarding the irregularities committed by the petitioner herein, who has worked as Executive Officer from 09.02.2010 to 22.11.2016 of the subject temple. It is further stated in the complaint that during his tenure, the petitioner, without obtaining permission from the competent authority has sold away the lands to various persons under five sale deeds against the orders of the Commissioner, Endowments department. It is further stated that the petitioner has fraudulently registered the sites belonging to Sri Ramalingeswra S.T., Nandigama without prior permission from the competent authority and has caused irreparable loss to the institution. Stating thus, the 2 respondent has requested the police to take appropriate action, pursuant to which, the police has registered a case in FIR.No.320 of 2017 for the offences punishable under Section 477-A, 408 of IPC. Subsequently, the Police have also filed a charge sheet vide C.C.No.481 of 2018 on the file of Additional 3. 3 VS,J Crlp_7510_2019 Judicial First Class Magistrate, Nandigama, seeking quashment of which, the petitioner has filed the present petition. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that in the year 1996, Sri Ramalingeswara Swamy temple, Nandigama mgde a layout in Sy.Nos.821/3 and 822 in respect of Acs. 12.00 cents and has conducted auction of various plots, wherein, the highest bidders paid the amount to the temple immediately, but could not obtain registered sale deeds. It is further stated that few persons i.e. Sri Pabbati Satyanarayana, Kotha Venkateswara Rao and Sri Velaga Sankara Rao have paid the bid amount way back in the year 1996 itself, but, the then Executive Officer, failed to get the plots registered in favour of the highest bidders. Hence, the petitioner herein who took charge of the said temple got it registered in favour of the highest bidders at their request and upon the directions issued by this Court in W.P.No.21242 of 1998, dated 20.07.1998 which was filed by the highest bidders. He further submitted that no financial loss has been caused to the said temple as the sale proceeds were collected as per the proceedings issued by the Commissioner of Endowments dated 11.09.1996. He further contended that the Commissioner, vide proceedings dated 03.10.2017 has appointed an enquiry officer directing to enquire into the charges framed against the petitioner herein, who after conducting detailed enquiry has dropped all the charges framed against the petitioner. Even otherwise, learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the police ought to have sought permission from the Government to prosecute the petitioner as per Section 197 of Cr.P.C., as the petitioner is a public servant. As such, requested this Court to quash the impugned charge sheet. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor contended that the allegations levelled against the petitioner would constitute offence punishable under Sections 477-A, 408 IPC, therefore, the proceedings against the petitioner cannot be quashed at this stage. Hence, prayed to dismiss the petition. 4. 5. 4 VS,J, € Crlp_7510_2019 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 petitioner in C.C.No.481 of 2018 on the file of Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Nandigama, Krishna 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 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 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. 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: 6. 7. 8. ^AIR 1960 SC 866 5 VS,J Crlp_7510_2019 (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 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 no legal evidence adduced or evidence adduced clearly or manifestly fails to prove the charge. 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 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 justification for interference by the High Court as held by the Apex Court in IVIrs.Dhanalakshmi v. R.Prasanna Kumar^ 9. no 10. Keeping in view the above principles, I would like to examine the case on hand. ^ AIR 1990 SC 494 6 VS,J. Crip_7510_2019 The facts of the petition are not in dispute. Upon receiving the complaint of the 2"^^ respondent, the Police have filed a case against the petitioner for the offences punishable under Section 477-A and 408 of IPC, which are extracted hereunder for better understanding: “477. Fraudulent cancellation, destruction, etc., of will, authority to adopt, or valuable security — Whoever fraudulently or dishonestly, or with intent to cause damage or injury to the public or to any person, cancels, destroys or defaces, or attempts to cancel, destroy or deface, or secretes or attempts to secrete any document which is or purports to be a will, or an authority to adopt a son, or any valuable security, or commits mischief in respect of such documents, shall be punished with imprisonment for life, or with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine. 408. Criminal breach of trust by clerk or servant— Whoever, being a clerk or servant or employed as a clerk or servant, and being in any manner entrusted in such capacity with property, or with any dominion over property, commits criminal breach of trust in respect of that property, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine. 11. Section 477-A IPC has three ingredients; (1) that at the relevant point of time, the accused should be a clerk or officer or servant or acting in that capacity; (2) that he should destroy, alter, mutilate or falsify any book, electronic record, paper, writing, valuable security or account, which belongs to or was in the possession of his employer and (3) the act should have been done wilfully and with an intention to defraud. 12. 7 VS,J Crlp_7510_2019 13. In similar circumstances, this Court in Kandipalli Madhavarao State Of A.P., held that there should be a wilful act of an accused with intention to defraud. As such, both elements must be VS an present and in other words it would mean that the act should be a wilful act and should also be done with an intention to defraud. While trying to define "intent to defraud", the Court noted that it contains two elements, deceit and injury. There is no doubt that to convict a person under Section 477-A IPC the prosecution has to ^rove that there was a wilful act, which had hppn maH^ with an intent to defraud and while proving ''Intehtion to defraud" the prosacutinr, has to fnrthpr B.rpve two elements that the act was an act of deceit and it had an iniurv. 14. In the instant case, it can be seen that vide proceedings Rc.No.V2/26930/2016, dated 03.10.2017 the Commissioner of Endowments has appointed an enquiry officer to enquire into the charges framed the petitioner. The enquiry officer, after issuing notice to the petitioner and after taking into consideration the written statement in against of defence of the report dated petitioner has concluded the enquiry and has submitted his 27.07.2018. Ihe enquiry officer himself has held that there is no r^rorH^H evidence to establish that the petitioner herein has swallowed the sale consideration. The petitioner herein has iust executed the ^ed in pursuant to the proceedings dated 11.09.1996. but has registered sale not collected the sale proceedinqs. It can be seen that the petitioner herein has got the plots registered in favour of the highest bidders as they could not be registered by the then Executive Officer due to various reasons, but, the petitioner herein has done the same as per the proceedings of the R. Dis. No. M1/33560/1996 Commissioner of Endowments vide dated 11.09.1996. However, the petitioner herein ought to have sought permission from the competent authority before effecting registrations in favour of the highest bidders, but, it can be seen that no financial loss occurred to the said 8 VS,i Crlp_7510_2019 temple. As such, this Court is of the opinion that the petitioner has not deceived anyone nor has caused an injury/loss to the aforementioned temple. Even otherwise, the petitioner herein is a public servant. In an unreported judgment of this Court in Bust Sam Bob v. The State of Telangana, rep by Special Public Prosecutor of CBI (CRLP No.5167 of 2016 datedi 1.08.2017), the petitioner therein is also an I.A.S. Officer allegedly faced similar allegations for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 120-B, 420, 409, 468, 471, 477-A IPC and under Sections 9, 11, 12, 13(2) r/w 13(1)(c) & (d) of the Act, and the learned Single Judge of this Court by placing reliance on Niranjan Singh Karam Singh Punjabi v. Jitendra BhimraJ Bijja and others^, State of Rajasthan v. Fatehkaran Mehdu^ and Amal Kumar Jha v. State of Chattisgarh and another^, held that sanction under Section 197 Cr.P.C is mandatory and the Court cannot take cognizance of the offence under the provisions of Indian Penal Code Keeping in view the aforesaid discussion, this Court is of the opinion that the impugned proceedings in C.C.No.481 of 2018 against the petitioner on the file of Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Nandiagama, Krishna District are liable to be quashed. 15. 16. Accordingly, this criminal petition is allowed and the proceedings in C.C.No.481 of 2018 against the petitioner on the file of Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Nandiagama, Krishna District are hereby quashed. The miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall also stand closed. 17. 7 1990 Cri. L.J 1869 2017(1) ALD(Crl) 842 (SC) ® AIR 2016 SC 2082 \ 4 Sd/-B PRASADA RAO ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To 1. The Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Nandigama, Krishna District. fV 2. The Station House Officer, Nandigama Police Station, Krishna District. 3. Two CCs to the Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh Amaravathi [OUT] 4. One CC to Sri P Nagendra Reddy, Advocate [OPUC] 5. Three CD Copies 1 TK sree awaarans'ji'.i ■n'-riSTSi-a- HIGH COURT DATED:18/02/2025 ORDER CRLP.No.7510 of 2019 * 12 MAR 2025 ? y ^ . Current Section ^ ^£ffSPATCV^5^ ALLOWING THE CRIMINAL PETITION