The High Court · 2025

Petltion 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 quash the CC No.1065 of 2021 pending on the file of Judicial 1st class Magistrate, Bhadrachalam, Bhadradri Kothagudem District. l.A. NO: 1OF 2022 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 appearance of the petitioner in C,C,No.'1065 of 2021 pending on the file of Judicial lst class Magistrate, Bhadrachalam, Bhadradri Kothagudem 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 M. Srinivasa Rao, Advocate for the Petitioner-Accused No.5 and the Assistant Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No.1 and none appeared for the respondent no.2. The Court made the following: ORDER - THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE JUWi\I]I SRIDEVI CRIMINAL PETtTtoN No.3357 OF 2022 ORDER This Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioner._ rccused No.5 seeking to quash the proceedings against him in O 1.No..1065 of 2021 on the file of learned Judicial First Cla;r; trrlagistrate, Bhadrachalam. Bhadradri Kothagudem, registr:r ed for the offences under Sections 409, 465, 46g,471,109 tf the lndian Penal Code lfor short 'lpC'). 02 Heard Sri Srinivasa Rao Madiraju, le,l ned c;ounsel for the petitioner-accused No.5 and Smt.S.l\4ac l^ avi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State-respondr)r)t No. 1. No representation on behalf of the respondent No.2. perused the record 03(a). Brief facts of the case are that: The ccmplainant is working as a Regional Coordinator in Telangana lrbal Welfare Residential Degree College (TTWRDC), erstwhi e Khammam District. Accused No. 1 is working as a Superinlendent; the accused No 2 is the wife of the accused No.1; the ilr:cusecJ No 3 is a friend of the accused No..l ; the accused No.4 is iL Data Entry 2 ..1 Operator; the petitioner-accused No.5 is the principal; and the accused No.6 is the A.dministrative Officer at TTWRDC (M), [\4anuguru. 03(b). lt is alleged that the accused Nos..l and 4 misappropriated the funds of TTWRDC (M), tManuguru, and the accused Nos.2 and 3 were the illegal beneficiarres of the misappropriated amounts. Based on the preliminary report submitted by the complainanUrespondent No.2, a Special Enquiry Committee was constituted, which submitted a detarled report Further, it is alleged that upon careful examination of the reports, the Secretary, TTWREIS, Hyderabad, placed the accused Nos.1 , 5 and 6 under suspension for misappropriation cf Government funds, gross negligence of primary duties as Drawing and Disbursing Officer (DDO), and for their failure to supervise the institution's accounts anC prevent the said misappropriation, which amounted to Rs.2g,1 1,043t- 03(c). lt is further alleged that the accused No.1 claimed ineligible HRA and pay to the tune of RsJ .02.764/- and an amount of Rs.23,90,'1074, meant for the accused No 4 (a terminated employee) for the period from November 2018 to April 2020, was diverted into accounts of persons related to the i I I I 7 3 accused Nos l and 4. The accused Nos.5 and 6 si3 red physical cheques and bank consent letters for the said ancunt Salary was wrongly claimed for one Smt N.Anusha, who w as on Extra Ordinary Leave (EOL) from 18.01 .2020 lo 30.04.2Or'.( amounting to Rs.1,63,940/- Excess employer contribution was rrlso credited to the PRAN account of an individual. Thus, out of the total misappropriated amount of Rs.29,1 1,0431-, an amount of Rs.28,68,687,' r,vas recovered from the accused lJo 1 and an amount of Rs 42.356/- was recovered from the a:,;used No.4 Hence, the accused Nos.1 to 6 committed the abo v,:-mentioned offences 04(a) t,earned counsel for the petitioner sui,rrits that the petitioner-accused No.5, being the senior-most Lecturer, was given charge of the Principal post of the College on 04.04.20'18. By virtue of holding the post of Principal, he also 1i. nctioned as the DDO of the institution. lt is further submitted th,:j . as per the established procedure, the Lower Division Clerk (LDC) normally prepares the bills online, which are then forwzrr ied to the Superintenderrt for scrutiny. Subsequently, the bills are sent to the Administrative Officer for verification, and fin;rl y, they are forwarded to the Principal for signature. The accusr:rl No.'l , who 4 was working as the Superintendent, had access to the system through a deslgnated user lD and password, which had been in his possession and use for a long time. Using these credentials, the accused No.1 would process and submit the salary bills online to the Head Office. ln many instances, the online system did not require the physical or digital signature of the Principal lt is further contended that whenever a signature was needed, the accused No.1 used to forge the petitioner's i.e. accused No.5 signature wrthout his knowledge. lt is further submitted that, while verifying the salary bills for the year 2019-20 in tvlay, 202O, the petitioner-accused No.5 noticed certain irregular claims, such as HRA and AGI in the names of fictitious guest faculty. 04(b). lt is further contended that upon a thorough internal verification, the petitioner-accused No.5 discovered large-scale financial misappropriation and several irregular salary claims in the names of persons who were not working at the institution. Thereafter, the petitioner-accused No.5 addressed a letter to the Secretary, TTWREIS, Hyderabad, requesting immediate action. Based on the said letter, the Secretary deputed the 2nd respondent to conduct an inquiry into the matter and also constituted a verification committee comprising the Deputy 5 - Secretary (Accounts) Vigilance Consultant' and three other team members.ltisfurthercontendedthatthepetitioner-irrcusedNo.5 has not committed any irregularities or misappropriatic n of college funds. Neither the rnquiry committee nor the conrplainatrt has made any allegation of misappropriation against tn: petitioner- accused No.5. Rather, it was the petitioner-accus:' j No 5' who reported the mi:;:rPProPriation identified the irregularities and It is further submil -'d that while committed bY the accused No'1 registering the crime, the name of the petitioner w:rs included as I herefore, the continuation of criminal accused No.5 proceedings against the petitioner-accused No 5 is n:thing but an abuse of process of law. Hence' the petitioner-a :cused No 5 prays for quashing of the criminal proceedings agai r';t him

05. On the other hand, learned Ass stant Public Prosecutor appearing for the State-respondent No 1 contended thattherearetriabletssuesandfactual.aspectstlbeexamined by the learned trial Court and it is not a fit caso to quash the proceedings against the petitioner-accused No 5 a this iuncture and the matter is to be decided after conductin I trial by the learned trial Court and prayed to dismiss this C-i ninal Petition' \.-tttt*! 6 None appeared on behalf of the respondent No.2. perused the record

06. A perusal of the record reveals that the major portion of the allegations pertains to other accused persons, and there are no specific or direct allegations levelled against the petitioner_ accused No.S. lt is further evident from the material on record that it v,ras the petitioner-accused No.S who addressed a retter to the higher authorities upon noticing the misappropriation of funds by the other accused persons. pursuant thereto, a committee was constituted to conduct a detailed enquiry into the matter. lt is not in dispute that the said committee, in its report, did not attribute any role or responsibility to the petitioner-accused No.5 and instead found fault with the accused No.1 for the alleged misappropriation of funds. The charge sheet, though lengthy and detailed, does not specifically refer to any role played by the petitioner-accused No.5 in relation to the alleged forgery, criminal breach of trust, or abetment in the commission of the alleged offence. lt is also an undisputed fact that amounts of Rs.2B,6B,6B7l- and Rs.42,3561 were recovered from accused Nos.1 and 4 respectively. -// !I

07. The initiation of the enquiry was a direct consequence of the letter addressed by the petitiore r-accused No.5 to the higher authorities. lt is not the car;e of the prosecution that the alleged irregularities or misapprcpriation of funds came to light through any other source or n€ians. lt is pertinent to note that the mere implicatron of the oetitioner- accused No.5, in the absence of any incriminating nraterial, is impermissible in law. In order to connect the cetitioner- accused No.5 to the alleged offences, there must be substantive evidence demonstrating his involverrr)nt in or abetment of the said acts. However, the record clerr ly reveals that there is no material to show that the petiiione r-accused No.S derived any benefit or gain from the commiss on of the alleged offences

08. ln Stafe of Haryana and others v. Ch.Bhajan Lal and othersl the Hon'ble Supreme Court of lndia held lhat: "ln the exercise of the extra-ordinary powe' under Afticle 226 or the inherent powers unae' Sectlon 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure Lhe following categories o/ cases are given t way of illustration wherein such power could ot' ' 'tggz scc (suPr,) 1 335 8 exercised either to prevent abusc of the process of any Coutl or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it may not be possible to lay down any precise, ctearly defined and sufficientty channelised and inflexible guide mynad kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised. (l) u,rhere the allegations made in the First lnformation Repoft 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 aqainst the accused: (A where the allegations in the First lnfornation Repoft and other materials, if any, accompanying the F.l.R. do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Secdon 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) ot the Code; (!) where the uncontroverted altegations made in the FIR or 'complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disc/ose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused; (4) where lhe allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a potice officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 1 55(2) of the Code: (!) where the allegatons made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inheren y improbable on the basis of which no prudent I person can ever reacll a just conclusion tl at there is sufficient ground for proceedl tg against the accused; (9) where there is an express legal L ar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Cc 1e or the concerned Act (under which a crimir al proceeding is instituted) to the institution a td continuance of the proceedings and/or wl ere there is a specific provision in the Code or t te concerned Act, providing efficacious redre,'s for the grievance of the aggrieved party; (l) trthere a criminal proceeding is manrfe s'ly attended with mala hde and/or where t te proceeding is maliciously instituted with tn ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on l,te accused and with a view to spite him dut> to private and personal grudge."

09. ln the present case, as discussed here rabove, it is evident from the material available on record tha: the charge sheet is silent with regard to any specific role, o,'ert act, or involvement of the petitioner-accused No 5 in the c omm ssion of the alleged offences. The principal ailegations are directed against the other accused persons. The charge sh:.:t does not disclose any material to show that the petitioner-a(loused No.5 derived any benefit from the alleged acts, nor is there any allegation of misappropriation of funds by him, anrl no amount was recovered from him during the course of ilrestigation. Even if the allegations in the charge sheet are terlen at their 4 r0 \ face value and accepted in their entirety, they do not, prima facie, constitute any offence as against the petitioner_accused No.5. Therefore, the presenl case falls within the parameters of point No.3 of Ch.Bhajan Lal,s case cited supra. '10. ln view of the aforementioned facts and circumstances and having regard to the well_settled principle of law formulated by the Honourabre supreme court in the decision referred supra, this Court is of the considered view that the essential ingredients necessary to constttute the offences under Sections 409, 465, 468,471, 109 of lpC are not made out against the petitioner-accused No.5 Hence, the continuation of the criminal proceedings against the petitioner,accused No 5 amounts to abuse of process of law and the same are liable to be quashed.

11. Accordingly, this Criminal petition is allowed and the criminal proceedings against the petitioner_accused No.5 in C.C.No. 1065 of 2021 on the file of learned Judicial First Class Magistrate, Bhadrachalam, Bhadradri Kothagudem, are hereby quashed. 11 As a sequel, pendrng miscellaneous apSrl cations, if any, shall stand closed SD/- C. DEEPIKA ANT REGISTRAR ASSIS //TRUE COPY// CTION OFFICER To, 1 The Judicial First class Magistrate, at Bhadrachalam, tli adradri Kothagudem District.

2. The Station House Officer, Bhadrachalam Town Police I tation at - enaoiJcfratam, Bhadradri Kothagudem District' 3 One CC to Sri ltil. Srinivasa Rao, Advocate [OPUCI 4- Two CCs to the Public Prosecutor, High Court for the S,t;rte of Telangana, Hyderabad [OUT]

5. Two CD CoPies t8, GA/gh HIGH COURT DATED:29/08/2025 ORDER CRLP.No.3357 ot 2022 1!i fftl :ilfr r i \.. :, \.,.., THE CRL.PETITION IS ALLOWING. L\ !l LC