High Court · 2025

The State of Telangana, Represented by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of Telangana, High Court Building Complex, Hyderabad. JaddhavJaiwanth Rao, S/o Jadhav Harilal, 57 yrs, Lambada, District Registrar (Rtd), Adilabad Rio Hosnapur (v) of Utnoor (m) of Adilabad- dist -(A5) (lnformanV DefactoComplainant) Pro- Forma Party 3 Station House Officer, Adilabad- ll- Town, Adilabad district ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANTS Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the lt/emorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased toto call for the records and quash the C.C. No 1119 of 2020 Dt.30- 07 -2019 on the f ile of First-class lVlagistrate Adilabad as against the petitionerS Accused 6 to 9 including all proceedings emanating there fi'om. l.A. NO: 1 OF 2021 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 stay all further proceedings including personal appearance of the Petitioner/ Accused No 6 to 9 in C.C. No 1 1 19 of 2020 on the file of The First- Class Magistrate Adilabad pending disposal of the criminal petition. This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the lt4emorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri NAZEER KHAN, Advocate for the Petitioner and Sri E.Ganesh, Asst. Public Proseciltor on behalf of the Respondent No.1 and 3 and none appeared for the Respondent No.2. The Court made the following: ORDER i I i i l THE HON 'BLE SRI JUSTICE E.V.vENUGOPAL CRIMINAL ETITIO N No.l 21,ot 2O2L ORDER: The present criminal petition is filed by the petitioners/accused Nos.6 to 9 seeking to quash the proceedings against them in cc No.1119 of 2020 dated

30.07.2019 on the file of the learned First Class Magistrate, Adilabad

2.HeardSriNazeerKhan,learnedcounselforthepetitionersand Sri E.Ganesh, learned assistant public prosecutor for the respondent Nos.1 and

3. Though notice was ordered, none appeared for the respondent No'2'

3. CC No.1119 of 2020 on the file ofthe trial court is a case registered basingonthecomplaintlodgedinCrimeNo.343of2018,dated13.12.2018of Adilabad-Il Town Police Station for the offences under sections 420,409 read with section 34 of IPC against the petitioners and others alleging misappropriation of the Government funds amounting to Rs'78,22,760/- by the accused Nos.1 to 4 taking advantage of the gross negligence and dereliction of duties of accused Nos.5 to 13. As per the recitals of the charge-sheet, on

31.07.2018, Lwusub-Registrar office, Adilabad upon verification of stamps sold register and the amounts deposited in the bank through challans found variation and same was reported to District Registrar office, Adilabad, who in turn reported the matter to Dy.Inspector General (stamps & Registrations), Karimnagar.Subsequently,thecommitteeconstituted,foundgrave ,l i I I I i I i 2 irregularities in the Registrar Office of Adilabad in not defacing the e-challans as per the procedure, non-payment of challans after taking franking machine and criminal breach of trust committed in stamps counter of the office of Sub- Registrar, Adilabad. The said committee found misappropriation of Rs.3,40,400/- for a period of just two months relating to sale of special adhesive stamps. Accordingly, the Deputy Inspector General (Registrations and Stamps), Karimnagar directed the District Registrar, Adilabad to place accused Nos.1 and 2 under suspension. Subsequently the Deputy Inspector General (Stamps and Registrations) constituted a committee to verify all the records of stamps counter with effect from 01.09.2014, which committee, upon verification, submitted a final report wherein it was found that an amount of Rs.78,22,7601- was found misappropriated in the stamps counter' The charge- sheet further alleged that the accused persons A5 to A13 exhibited gross negligence and dereliction of duty and lack of supervision and gave scope to the accused persons A1 to A4 who colluded with each other and committed criminal breach of trust by misappropriating an amount of Rs.78,22,760/- with common intention peftaining to special adhesive stamps which are sold on net cash from 01.09.2014 to 01.08.2018 showing the stamps sold through challans and utilized for their own.

4. The trial Court took cognizance for the offences with which the accused were charge-sheeted by assigning CC No.1119 of 2020. Aggrieved by their array as accused in the said case, the petitioners herein filed the present ,.=EHffiElr ':?+i,! ,;- ./ / , criminal petition seeking to quash the said proceedings mainly contending that there is evidence alleging that the petitioners have misappropriated the funds, but they were found fault with for their negligence, lack of supervision, dereliction of duties and giving scope to accused Nos.l to 4 to perpetrate the fraud, they have no role at stamps counter, maintaining registers of sales and stock register and remitting the cash to the bank or sub-registry, they have no control or supervisory duty in this regard and at best they can be enquired departmentally and that they gained nothing in the alleged fraud and that the charge-sheet is also silent in this regard, the confessional statements of LWs.13 and 14, basing of which, they were arrayed as accused, are inadmissible in evidence, lack of permission under Section 84 of Registration Act for their prosecution is bad and that there are no ingredients in the charge-sheet to establish the offences alleged against them.

5. Learned assistant public prosecutor strongly opposed the present criminal petition mainly contending that it is a serious fraud perpetrated by the accused with the help and co-operation extended by the petitioners, who are the public servants and unless and until the full-fledged trial is conducted and the allegations levelled against the petitioners in the charge-sheet are tested on the touch stone of the trial, their complicity or otherwise cannot be known and without doing such exercise, declaring them either way is a premature one and hence, the present criminal petition is liable to be dismissed. 4

6. Upon perusal of the material placed before this Couft and upon hearing rival contentions advanced on either side, it shows that the petitioners herein have confessed before LW15 in the presence of mediators LWs.13 and 14. The petitioner/accused No.6 confessed that he worked as Senior Assistant at Sub- Registrar Office, Adilabad since 04.11.2011 and later he was promoted as Sub- Registrar on 01.09.2018 and while he was working as in-charge Sub-Registrar, accused Nos.1 to 4 misappropriated an amount of Rs.4,97,548/- due to his negligence and dereliction of duty and he did not verify the records and details of stamps sold amount. Petitioner/accused No.7 confessed that he worked as Senior Assistant at Sub-Registrar office, Adilabad since 24.04.2012 and while he was working as in-charge Sub-Registrar the accused Nos.1 to 4 have misappropriated an amount of Rs.23,02,3871- due to his negligence and dereliction of duty and he did not verify the records and details of stamps sold amount. The petitioner/accused No.B confessed that he worked as Senior Assistant at Sub-Registrar office, Adilabad since 19.08.2010 and while he was working as in-charge Sub-Registrar, the accused Nos.1 to 4 have misappropriated an amount of Rs.11,29,453/- due to his negligence and dereliction of duties and he did not verif,/ the records and details of stamps sold amount. The petitioner/accusedNo.9 confessed that he worked as Junior Assistant at Sub-Registrar Office, Adilabad since 25.12'2015 and that while he was working as in-charge Sub-Registrar the accused Nos.l to 4 have .*grsappropriated an amount of Rs.10,98,150/- due to his negligence and { 5 dereliction of duties and he did not verifi/ the records and details of the stamps sold amount. when the above confessions are perused it can be safely held that there is prima-facie allegations levelled against the petitioners though they were the subject matter of trial. T.ThepropositionoflawaslaiddownbytheHon,bleSupremeCourtin M/s.Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., Vs' State of Maharashtra and otherc1 is very clear that the inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. do not confer an arbitrary jurisdiction on the High Court to act according to whim or caprice, that statutory power has to be exercised sparingly with circumspection and in the rarest of rare cases. when the facts of the case on hand are tested on the touchstone of the above proposition of law, it is clear that there is prima-facie allegation levelled against the petitioners warranting them to face trial and the court to Frame a charge and in such circumstances, the case of the prosecutioncannotbetermedasanabuseofprocess.InthatViewofthe matter this court opines that this is not a fit case to quash the proceedings against the petitioners, as prayed for. However, the petitioners are at liberty to moveanappropriateapplicationbeforethetrialcourt,iftheydesire,andthe trial Court, if such application is made by the petitioners, shall dispose of the same in accordance with law, without being influenced by the findings made herein. However, the appearance of the petitioners before the learned ludicial ' Crl.A.Nt,.ililO ot202l (Suprernc Cotrrt) 6 Magistrate of First Class, Adilabad in CC No. 1 119 of 2020 is dispensed with until and unless their presence is required by the said Court. B. With the above findings, the present criminal petition is disposed of

9. Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall stand closed SD/- P PADMANABHA REDDY ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECS1"orr,"=* To,

1. The Judicial First Class Magistrate Adilabad 2 The Station House Officer' Police Station, Adilabad-ll Town :. r*L cc, to tn" PUBLIC PRosEcuToR, High court at Hyderabad 4. One CC to SRI NAZEER KHAN, Advocate [oPUC] 5. Two CD CoPies (ouT) i pklPS t HIGH COURT DATED:11102t2025 I /1 I ORDER CRLP.No.1821 ol 2021 ; S f,4 .rC Ci ') ') ?g lut 2$6 \ j 1,, ..1 n" '.i:-- - CRIMINAL PETITION IS DISPOSED OF v