1 APHC010508162021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3333] TUESDAY, THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 7425/2021 Between: Jayavarapu Srinivas, ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND State of Andhra Pradesh and others ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner/accused: 1. NAGA PRAVEEN VANKAYALAPATI Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S): 1. SATYANARAYANA DHARA 2. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP) The Court made the following: 2 ORDER: The present Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code (for short “Cr.P.C.”) seeking to quash the proceedings initiated against the petitioner in Crime No.411 of 2021on the file of Dowaleswaram Police Station, East Godavari District, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 403, 409 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. The petitioner herein is the Accused, who is Assistant Manager of Central Bank of India, RajamaendravaramBranch, and the 2nd respondent herein is de facto complainant, who is Regional Manager of the Central Bank of India, lodged a complaint against the petitioner, alleging that the petitioner- accused, during the course of his employment in Dowleswaram Branch from 29.07.2019 to 05.04.2021, committed grave misconduct of attempting criminal breach of trust. It is alleged that one Dondapati Srinivas was a customer of the Bank having S.B. account bearing No.3225626022. One Smt. D.Nagamani, who is wife of Srinivas informed the bank through a letter dated 25.03.2021 that her husband Sri Dondapati Srinivas died on 28.02.2021 and she was the nominee of the aforesaid bank account and she requested the bank to settle the amount lying in the account in favour of her. During the process of settlement of the amount, the petitioner, who is Branch Manager of the bank transferred an amount of Rs.18,00,000/- to his personal account bearing No.4478101001628 maintaining in Canara Bank, Attili Branch on 29.03.2021 through RTGS vide UTR No.CBINR52021032910002236 without any 3 vouchers, instead of paying the amount lying in the account maintained by D.Srinivas, to Smt. D.Nagamani-nominee. The said RTGS transaction was entered by Mr.Jayavarapu Srinivas, Emp.No.79914 with the first authorization by Mr.Muppanaboina Sri Gopal Chinta Raj Kumar, Emp.No.68624, Head Cashier-II and the second authorization was by Mr.Jayavarapu Srinivas, Emp.No.79914. It is further alleged that Sri Rajkumar obeyed the instructions of his higher authority-Branch Manager (the petitioner) and he authorized the said entry as first authorization, and thereafter, he informed the same with other staff due to which the said amount of Rs.18,00,000/- was made good. On the next day i.e. on 30.03.2021 the Brnach Manager (the petitioner) visited the Canara Bank, Rajahmundry Branch and transferred the amount through RTGS from his Canara Bank account bearing No.4478101001628 vide cheque No.083300, dated 30.03.2021 to the savings account of DondapatiSrinivas bearing A/c.No.3225626022 vide UTR No.CNRBR52021033059747416 to cover up his laches and finally he settled the full claim in favour of the Nominee-D.Nagamani, and thereby committed the criminal breach of trust. Basing on the said complaint, the police registered a case in Crime No.411 of 2021 against the petitioner for the offences punishable under Sections 403, 409 and 420 IPC. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondents. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner mainly submits that the petitioner is innocent of any offence much less the offences alleged in the complaint and 4 he was falsely implicated in the alleged crime. Even if the allegations made in the complaint, are accepted to be true, no offence as alleged is made out against the petitioner, as there was delay of nearly seven months in lodging the complaint from the date of alleged incident i.e., on 29.03.2021 and the delay was not explained by the 2nd respondent-de facto complainant, in the absence of which, the proceedings will not be continued against the petitioner. Further, the petitioner already explained the reason as to why the said amount was transferred to his account in Canara Bank and there was no mala fide intention on the part of the petitioner in transferring the said amount to his account and there was no commission of the offence of misappropriation of funds. He further submits that the punishment of compulsory retirement was already imposed against the petitioner and hence, launching of criminal proceedings against the petitioner amounts to double jeopardy and therefore, the proceedings initiated against the petitioner in Crime No.411 of 2021 are liable to be quashed. 5. On the other hand, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the respondents, would contend that the allegations of the complaint establish the ingredients of the offence of criminal breach of trust, as the petitioner, being the Branch Manager of a bank, dishonestly misappropriates the amounts and converts to his own property, when he was entrusted with the dominion of the property. He further submits that since there are serious allegations of misappropriation of property, the truth or otherwise of which will be determined during the course of trial, there are no 5 valid grounds to quash the criminal proceedings launched against the petitioner and prays to dismiss the criminal petition. 5. Having heard the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the material available on record, the point that arises for consideration is: “Whether the proceedings initiated against the petitioners in Crime No.411 of 2021on the file of Dowaleswaram Police Station, East Godavari District, are liable to be quashed by exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.?” 6. 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 6 sparingly in exceptional cases and this power is external in nature to meet the ends of justice. 7. 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: 8. 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.” 9. 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 1AIR 1960 SC 866 7 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 Kumar2” 10. In “State of Haryana v. BhajanLal3” 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. 2 AIR 1990 SC 494 3 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 8 (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 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.” 11. Keeping in view the above principles, I would like to examine the case on hand. 12. In the case on hand, a reading of the complaint would show that one Dondapati Nagamani, wife of Dondapati Srinivas, who is maintaining a Savings Bank account in the bank where the petitioner/accused was working as Branch Manager of the bank, informed through a letter dated 25.03.2021 that her husband Srinivas died on 28.02.2021 and requested the bank officials to settle the amount lying in the name of her husband in her favour. Accordingly, during such process an amount of Rs.18,00,000/- was 9 fraudulently transferred into the account of the petitioner maintained in the Canara Bank through RTGS and when it came to the notice of the higher authorities, the petitioner transferred the said amount into the account of the complainant through RTGS. It is evident that a preliminary enquiry was conducted by the Regional Office, Visakhapatnam where the alleged transfer was found as suspicious transfer. Consequently, the punishment of compulsory retirement was imposed against the petitioner. The allegations made in the complaint, constitute the offence of criminal breach of trust. Therefore, the truth or otherwise of which will be determined by the competent criminal Court after a full-fledged trial. It is also a fact that the amount involved in the present case is Rs.18,00,000/-, which in fact was transferred by the petitioner to the defacto complainant, when it was noticed by his higher authorities. 13. Therefore, this Court is of the view that it is not a fit case to quash the proceedings initiated against the petitioner herein. 14. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is dismissed. Consequently, miscellaneous applications pending if any, shall stand dismissed. __________________ JUSTICE V.SUJATHA Date: 28.01.2025 KGR