The High Court · 2025

Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No.'1 and of Sri Abdul Mateen Qureshi, Standing Counsel for Central Government Rep. Sri Gadi Praveen K.umar, Deputy Solicitor General of lrrdia for the Respondent No.2. The Court made the following Order : ':: ..t n THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE E.V. VENUGOPAL CRIMINAL PETITION No.499 of 2023 ORDER: ' This Criminal Petition is frled under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, (for short 'Cr.P.C') by the petitioner/ accused, seeking to quash the C.C.No.617 of 2022 on the file of Junior Civil Judge, Thorrur at Mahabubabad District (for short, 'the trial Court'), registered for the offences punishable under Sections 420 and 409 of Indian Penal Code.

2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr.E.Ganesh, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent No.l/State Mr.Abdul Mateen Qureshi, learned standing counsel for Central Government representing Mr.Gadi Praveen Kumar, Deputy Solicitor General of India for respondent No.2. Perused the record.

3. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner, who is the Inspector of Posts, allegedly misappropriated an amount of Rs.3,25,000/-. During thd I 2 EW,J Crt.P.No.499 oJ 2O23 inspection,/verification, as per Social Security Pension glance reports of Ramannagudem SP Location on 3 i. 10.20I €i ar amount of Rs.S,OOO/- only was disbursed at Ramannagudem CSP Location (to be charged at Nellikudur Sub-Post Office on 01.11.2018), where as Rs.3,t30,000/- (Rupees T'L:ree la-khs thirty thousand only) was charged by Mr.Kokku Gopinath/petitioner herein on 01.. 1 1.2018 towards SSP Payments at Nellikudur Sub-Office against actual Socrial Security Payment instead of Rsr.5,000/-. Thus, the said Mr.Kokku Gopinath/petitioner has excess charged an amount of Rs.3,25,000/- under Socia.J Security Pension p€rJ,ments at Nellikudur Sub Post Offir:e, owing responsib,Llrty of excess charging of Sociai Securitv pension (SSP) pa-nn ents of Rs.3,25,000/- and he voJ.untarily credited an zrmount of Rs.3,65,219/-(Rs.3,25,000/- + penal interest ol Rs.40,219l-) at Maripeda S.O on 18.01.2020 vide Document No.483O164735 along with_ his representation dated Ia.Ol.2O2O, as such, a case is registered against the petitioner herein in Cr.No.57 of 2022 and the serne is taken on file as C.C.No.617 of 202j,2 for the offences punishable under Sections 42O and 409 rtf ,1"9_, I t i1 3 DW,J Crl.P.No.499 of 2O23 the trial Court. Aggrieved by the salne, the present Criminal Petition is Iited by the petitioner/accused, seeking to quash the Calendar Case.

4. Learned counsei for the petitioner contended that the allegations made against the petitioner are concocted by falsely implicating the petitioner herein in the present case and the ingredients of the Sections 42O and 409 IPC are not attracted to the present case. He further contended that the petitioner is working in the cadre of Inspector of Posts and completed 10 years of service in the Postal Department and there was no complaint till O5.O5.2O22' In fact, on coming to know the fact that excess amount has been charged on 01.11.2018 in SSP (Social Security Pension), the petitioner voluntarily credited the amount with penal interest on 18.01 .2019 without waiting for orders/ Investigation from the higher authorities'

5. He further contended that as per the contents of the complaint, incident occurred in the year, 2018 and the Departmental Enquiry was conducted and the petitioner herein cooperated with the enquiry and the issue was 4 EW,J Crl.P.No.499 ol 2O23 closed in the year, 2027 and accordingly, or(lr3rs were passed by the Director of Postal Services, Flrzderabad Region, I{yderabad, and Disciplinary Authoritl. o.O"r"O that pag r>J' Mr.K.Gopinath, Inspector of Post, Mammam South Sub -Diuision, Khammam reduced by one stage i.e., from 49,A'C0/- (in leuel 7 index 4) to Rs.47,6OO/- in leuel 7 index 3) 1br a period of 3 gears and 3 months tuitlt immediate elfect and he u.till not ear-rL increment:; o.f paA during thet peiod of reduction. It is also further orcl<"-red that on expiry of the period of reduction, the reductioit tuill not haue the e:Lfe-ct of postponing the future increments of paA.

6. He further contended that respondent No.2/Lavudya Saida Naik is Superior Officer to the petitioner, u,ho bore grudge agarnst the petitioner herein due to previous enmity intentionally filed the present criminal case in r:rder to tarnish the reputation of the petitioner and to prevent the petitioner fi'om opting for trarsfer to Warangal Divr.-sion.

7. He firrther contended that, the police have registered a false case at a belated stage basing on the fa-lse complaint and upon the registration of the crime, the police filed '1 t I I I L 5 EW,J Ctl.P.No.499 of 2023 charge sheet without proper investigation. He relied upon the decisions rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in P.S.RaJga as Stdte of Biharr, which reads as follows: The st.I dard of proof requlred to est4,brlsh the gutlt tn a estc.bltsh the gtltlt ln the depatbnental proceedlngs. Ia the ln-sta:'rt case the charge ln the depqrtmeatal proceedlngs and ln the ctlmlndl proceedlngs 7s one and the sqtlre. If the chdrge tohtch ls tdefltlcal could not be establlshed ln a dePdrtmentql proceedlngs and. ln vleut of the ad^ttted. d.Lsc'epoIlcles ln the reports submltted. bg the ualuers one wondets uhdt 7s there Jurthet to proceed o;go.tnst the appellant ln crTm'ln'al proceedl^gs. The appellant's cdse ca be brought under m,ote than one head of guldellnes lald d.own h Bhq.idn Lal c@se fot quashing oJ d co,'rpl.Il^UFlR. The Htgh Court @as not rtght ln t4,ktng the vleu thqt the lssues rdlsed had to be gone tnto ln the Ji,I.dl proceedings and the Report of the Central vlglld.nce Co'r?.mlssio,, eaoflerating the ^ental Proceed.ings would qppell@nt oJ the sarne charge ln dePirtt ll.ot conclude the crlmlndl co'se dgoln,st the appellant. At the rlsk of repetltlon, ae n@g stdte thqt the charge had lnot been ptoaed @nd on that basls the appellant uqs cleared oJ depqrtmentql enqulry. I^ thls conneitlon, ue mag als,o uselullg clte a declslon of thls Court ln Others vs Bhai@ Lal dnd Othe'.s (1992 Supp.(l) SCC 335r. Thls Court o.fier conslderlng rlanost all earller declslons ho,s glvetu guldellnes ,'elattng to the exerclse of the erttq ofdlnqry pouet undet Artlcle 45 oJ the Constltutlo or the lnherent powets under Sectton 482 oJ the Code o! C7lmt'1.al procedure Jot quqshlrtg @ F.I.R. or a complat^t. Thls Court obseroed as tollotos ; teo Ha "In the backdtoP ol the tnt rPretqtlon of the uo,rlous releuant provklor.s of the Code undei Chapter frV arrd o!'tllit prl,.lclples of ld.LD enur.clo:ted. bg thts Court ln a serles of d'ecklo^s teldtlng to the exetclse of the er.traotdtnary Powet undet tL!9k 225 ot the lihere^t Poutets under Sectlo^ 4a2 oJ the Code 'Dhlch ue hq,oe ertrqcted and reptoduced dboue, ute gfue the Iollot"tng cetego"les o! cases bg uag of tllusttdtlon uheteln srlch Pouter could be exerclsed elthei to Pteoe^t q.bt1s,e of the Process ol qng cotrt or other-wke to secute the e7.ds of Justlce, though lt maY I (rqqa) s scc r t I ; I 6 EW,J Crl.P.No.499 of 2023 o\ not Ite possible to la! do@^ q.ng ptecise, clearlg deJined. and. sulJicientlg channelized d^d inflexlble guideLfles ot rigid. lonnvlde qLd. to gioe @n exhaustite llst of mgdd.d klnd.s qf c@ses u)herei\ such potDer shouLd. be e,,e'.cised. (1) Where the allegatloas md.d.e ln the Jitst i,'for'n(Itlon report or the cornpldlnt, even tJ theg dte ta.ke'r at their fdce udlue a\d accepted. lft thear entiretg do not prlrrre fd.cie constltute ong olfence ot tndke out q. ca,se agalnst the @ccused. (2) Where the alleg@tlon in the JTrst l^Jorn otio,a report dnd other md.teriq.ls, l_f ang, q.ccornpqnglng the FIR do zot dasclose a coglizc.ble o.fJence, Justtlglng dn lnaestigdtion bg pollce ofJicers under Sectlon 156(1) oI the od.e eacept undet dn order oJ a Magistrd.te lJ.,lthln the puntie.D ol Sectlo'l 155(2) oJ the ode. (3) Where the uncontroverted. allegatlo^s md.d.e in the FIR or compldint and. the evld.e^ce collected ln stpport ol the sume do not disclose the co''it'n:Lssloft ol dng ofJence @nd md.ke out a co'se dgain:st the (Iccused, (4) Wthere, the allegations ift the FIR d.o not constitute @ cognizable olfeflce but constitute onlg a non-cognizdble ofJefice, no investigdtlon ls pennitted, bg o tnagistr-dte q.s contempld.ted under Sectiorr 155(2) oJthe Cod.e. (S) Where the d.llego,tio'1-s ,rt(rde in the FIR or cotnplaint o.re so q.bsurd. and lnherentlg improbable on the ba.sls o.f uhich no prudent person c4,n eoet reach d. just conclusion thdt there is sulficient gtound. fot proceed.lng o.gainst the q.ccused. (6) Where there is an e4ress legal bar engrafted. in dnA ol the prorisions ol the Cod.e or the conce ed. Act (und.er which a cfimindl pfoceed.lng is tnstltuted) to the t'1.stltutio|/. and. contittudnce of the ptoceedi^gs dnd/or urhere there ls a specific prouision ln the Cod.e or. the concened Act, pt-ovid.ing elJicdclous redre:ss for the grlevance of the aggrieued pdttA. (7) Where d crlml,!.al ptoceedlng is manilestlg attend.ed. @ith mala. Jid.e and/or uhere the proceeding ts mq.liciouslg tnstituted. uith an ulteriot motlve for ureq.klrtg aer.gednce on the dccused q.nd. tttith .t ule@ to splte hirn due to prloate an personal gr-udge. .. We (rlso give d note ol cd:utlo't to the eIrect that the pooer of quash.ing a crt',nln,q.l p7oceedlrtg should. be eaercised very sparinglg dnd. @ith clrcuntspection and thdt too in the rarest o! ra,fe cq.ses; thdt thc court uill not be J'ust{led. ln embarking upon dn enqulry ds ta the rcllabilitg or genuin,efless or o|herwlse of the allegatio s mo.d.e ln the FIR or the conplq.lnt and thqt the I t 7 EW,J Crl.P.No.499 of 2023 ertraordlnary or lnherent pourers do not conlet o'n- arblttlry Jurisdtctlon on the court to act accordlng to lts whlm or cqprlce." Eoen though all these lqcts lz,clu,di'r,g the Report o.f the centrql Vigllqnce Commlstjon were brought to the notlce o.f the Htgh Court, unfortunqtelg, the Htgh Court took @ ulet t that the lssues ralsed had to be gone l,I'to l^ the final ptoceedlngs and the Report of the Central vtgllonce Commlsslo,l, exoneratlng the o.ppellant ol the sqme charge ln departmentq.l proceedlngs toould rn.ot conclude the crltn,ln,al cdse dgdl'rst the appellqat. We haoe thls csse, the crimlnql proceedlngs tnttlqted. o,gajr.st the appellant cd.,tr;,[.ot be purs'ued. Therefore, we do ,a,ot d.gtee wlth the nleut tdken bg the Hlgh Court d.s stated qboue, These q.re the reasons Jor otr order dated 27.3.7996 Jot q.llo@lng the a.pPeal and. quashlng the t npugned crTr,.l'r,ol proceedings dnd glolng cons equentlql rellefs.

8. He further relied on the decision rendered by the Honlrle Supreme Court in CAPT. M. Paul Anthong as Bharat Gold Mines Ltd. and anothera and the decision rendered by the High Court of Madras in R. Rauinchandran as. Sto:te3, and contended that the incident occurred in the year 2O1B and the Departmental Enquiry concluded in the year, 2O2l and a criminal case is registered at a belated stage with an ulterior motive to harass the petitioner herein, hence, he seeks to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.6 17 of 2022 pending on the file of learned Junior Civil Judge, Thorrur, Mahabubabad. ' (tggg) I scc 6ts ' zot+ o31MwN (cr.) 1o 8 EW,J Crl.P.No.499 oJ 2O23 g . On -he other hand, learned Assistant Public Prosecutc,r for respondent No.1 opposed the subnrissions made b5' the learned counsel for the petition e'r and contenderl that unless and until a full-fledged trial is conducterl. truth cannot be elicited and interference of this Court at this stage is unwarranted. Thereltrre, he prayed to clismiss the Criminal Petition'

10. Leartred Standing Counsel for respondetrr- No.2 contendeC that the petitioner herein utilized an amount of Rs.3,25,0OO I - by cheating the Postal Departrnent by way of n'rongly showing the excess amount of Rs.3,25,CrO0/- in DTR of Nellikudur Sub Post Office dated 01.11.2018 by deviating the Rule-69 ol- Postal Manual \/olume-Vl Part-III and cheated the department which att.racts Section 42O of IPC. Further, the pr:1-itioner being a public servant utilized the excess chargecl money which attrzLcts Section 409 of IPC. Hence, he seeks to dismiss the Criminal Petition. t I l Jl 9 EW,J Crl.P.No.499 ol 2O23 I I

11. In rriew of the facts and circumstances of the case, considering the submissions made by learned counsel , I for the respective parties and relying upon the decisions rendered by the Honble Supreme Court in P. S.Rajya us State of Bihar, CAPT. M. Paul Anthong as Bharat Gold Mines Ltd and another and R. Rouinchandran as. State, this Court is of the opinion that continuation of the criminal proceedings which was registered against the petitioner herein at a belated stage after closure of the Departmental proceedings based on the same set of facts would be unjust resultantly he is forced to go through the tribulations of the trial after closure of the departmental proceedings

12. Accordingly, this Criminal Petition is allowed quashing the . proceedings initiated against . the petitioner/accused in C.C.No.617 of 2022 pending on the file of learned Junior Civil Judge, Thorrur, Mahabubabad District. 10 EW,J Crl.P.No.499 of 2O23 Misct:llaneous petitions pending, if any, shal1 stand closed. \ To, //TRUE COPY// Sd/- N. SRIHARI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR I (J E TION OFFICER

1. The Judicial First Class Magistrate at Thorrur 2. The Station llouse Officer, Nellikudur PS, Mahabubabad 3.TwoCCstothePublicProsecutor,HighCourtfortheStateofTelangana, Hyderabad ICUT]

4. one cc to Sri Gadi Praveen Kumar, Deputy solicitor General of lndia [oPUC] 5. One "" 6. Two CD CoPit>s 1o S;ri Veera Babu Gandu, Advocate [OPUC] I I n j HIGH COURT DATED:07 rc212025 ) ORDER CRLP.No.499 of 2023 ( ? rE S IAr€ 0 7 liii ?025 I t r?Es netC\' ALLOWING THE CRLP 6 b\a