The High Court · 2025

2. Brief facts of the case: 2 .l The catsc of thc prosecution is that I rc llctitioner workcd :rs J)eputy Superintendent of Policr (DSP), Anti- Corruption Ilurcau (ACB), Nizamabad. l'' rrlicr, while discharging his duties as Circle Inspector o - I)olice, ACB, Karimnagar, I-r e had conducted investigati,;'r irl several cases, how<:r'et-, he did not deposit the <;:r; : properties, including trap arnolrnts, \ gold ornarnents, rr'( bik: phones, DVDs, chenlical samples, and other items. : ciz<:d during thc coursc cf investigation in rnultiple case; wltich were 2 required to dcposited in the Court or hand over to his successors, but he failed to do so. Ir_r particular, he did not deposit or hand over the trap amounts of Rs.3O,OOO/_, Rs. 1,OO,OOO / -, and, Rs. t,50,OOO/-, iphone, and several gold ornarnents, olrt of which sorne ornaments were later found to be counterfeit upon appraisal. Thc cases allected include Crime No.07IACB_KNR/20 17, Crime No.09lACB_ KNR/20 i7, Crime No.04IACB_KNR/20 t8 and Crime No.14IACB-KNR/2OO9, and deliberately misappropriatcd and suppressed case properttes, thereby obstructing the collrse of justicc. Acting upon the directions of the Government of Telangana irnd the ACB authorities, the present crime case was registcred for the aforesaid offences. Hence, the pctitior-rer hled the present criminal petition seeking to quash thc proceedings in the prcsent crime.

3. Heard Sri Ch.Venkat Raman, Iearned counsel for the petitioner, and Sri T.Baia Mohan Reddy, learned Special Public Prosecutor, appearing on behalf of the respondent_ State. I J

4. Subrnissions of learned counsel for the l) ]titioner:

4.1 Lc:rrned co\rnsel subrnitted that re lletitioncr has not comrnittcd anv offence and hc' was falselv implicated in t lre prcsent case. Even acc,r 'ding to the allegations rnaclc in the complaint, the ingrc: icnts for the offences Lrnclcr Section 13(1)(a) of the Act anrl Ser:tion 2O I of iPC do not attract against the petitionc,- He further submittcd tl-rirt thc pctitioner had taken f,-r I additional cLrarge of Inspector of Policc, Anti-Corrup ion Burcau (ACB), Karirnn;,rgar, and he worked from (-rl .11.21o17 to

02.O4.2021 ancl on his promotion as DSP, ht [randed ovcr CD files pertirining to ACB, Karirnnagar, to -- is successor namel_,- S.P. Ila,,,indcr, on 06.05.2021. In trr-n, the said S.P.Ravindcr hirncled over the same to A.T I rruyrathi, on o 1.06.2021

4.2 He fi.rrt,hcr submitted that the only zLll : 4ation rnade against the petitioner is that he failed to he nd over the case propertir:s and trap amount in i) Crimt No.07/ACB KNR/20i7, ir) Crime No.09/ACB-KNR/20 1t, iii) Crime No.04lACB-KNIt/20 18, and ir) Crime No.14lACB KNR/2OO9 and he did reot make arry effort l:i report the 4 mlsslng trap arnor.rnts and rnobile phone to his superior Olficers and thereby he committed gross negligence towards his duties_ Thc petitioner is not responsible for the rnissing trap arnounts and mobile phonc. He furrher subrnitted that due to the negiigencc of ttre Court Head Constabie namely G.Sadaiah of ACB, rnissed the trap amour-rts in the above three cases. As soon as the pctitioner carne to know the said facts, he lodged a complaint on 19.08.2O2 1 to the Director General of ACB, 'lclangana, to take action against the concerned. llowevcr, the authorities have not taken any steps in that rcgard. Hence, the ingredients for the offences under Scction 13(t)(a) of the Act and Section 2Ot of IpC u,ould n()t attract against the petitioncr.

4.3 He also subrnitted that the Department initiated departrnental proceedings against the petitioner basing upon tlre very same allegations made in the present crime. On that, the petitioner had approached this Court ald filcd W.P.l.Io.24697 of 2022 questioning the charge memo, dated 3O.08.2O21, issued by respondent No.2 therein and to declare the same as illega_l and consequently direct respondent No.3 therein not to conduct disciplinary \ ) ^ proceedings in FIR No.O3 /ACB-KNR1': O22, dated

22.O3.2022. The said writ petition w.is allowed on 31 .1O.2022 granting stay of the proce(:( tings in the DcparrtmenterL Enquiry againsl thc petition,r' for a period o[ two years and furLher it was made c. t ar that after cxpiry of tu.o ycars, the said stay orc ( r would get automaticalll. vacated and liberty was liven to the respondents to continue the departrnental proceedings. Aggrieved bt' the above said order, the respor derrts therein llled Writ Appcai No.478 ol 2023 and tl.e same was clisposed of observing that the stay granted l,y the learned Single Jrrdge has expired on 3I.IO.2:24 and the appellants therein are at liberty to go a . ead with the cl()partrnen t:r] enquiry against the responc < nt thercin in pursuance of the charge memo, dated 28.C ii.2027. Once thc departmental procccdings a_re n progress, continuation of the proceedings against th : petitioner for the very selme allegations is clear abtrse of he process of law.

4.4 He further subrnitted that as per t te Handbook pcrtaining to Chapter-4, the ACB ofhcials e re not having authority to conduct investigation and th e investigation l 6 has to be conducted by local police or CID. In support of his contention, he relied upon the judgment of the Hon,bie Apex Court in I(.H. I(amaladini vs. Stater.

5. Subrnissions of learned Special public prosecutor for respondent:

5.1 Learned Special public prosecutor submitted that thc petitioncr has committed severai irregularities, whilc discharging his services as Inspector of police, ACB, Karirnnagar, which are grave in nature, and there is gross negligencc towards his duties, as he failed to hand over the case properties including the trap hrnounts in Cr.No.07lACB-KNRi/2017, Cr.No.09IACB_KNR/20 I 7 and Cr.No.04lACB-KNR/2017. In Crime No.14lACB_ KNR/2OO9, the petitioner had produced fake gold in place of gold. 'Ihe petitioner did not make any efforts to report the rnissing trap arnounts and mobile phone to his superior officers. The DSp, ACB, Warangal Range, after cond ucting detailed cnquiry, the Director General, ACB, 26.08.2O2I. pursualt to Governrnent of Telangana, subrnitted enquiry report to Telangana, Hyderabad, on the said enquiry report, Home (Special) Department 1 2025 SCC OnLine SC U76 .\ --:=., issrred procccdings on O 1. 11.2O27 granting p :rmission for initiation of' the disciplinary proceedings z nd crirninal proceedings against the petitioner. Al ' t obtaining salction frorn tLre Governmcnt of Telanga r a, thc DSP, ACB, Karrimnagar, lodged a cornplaint. Bzrr; ng upon the sarne, Crirrrc No.O3/ACB-KNR/ 2022 was r:gistcred on 22 .O3 .2022 . There are spcci fic allegation ; agains t tkre petitioncr rhal he has not handed ov( 1 the above mentioncd 1 rilp arnor-rnts t o his sllcc( I sor narnely A.Tiruperthi. Inspector of Polict: and not depcs itecl thc case property in the Cor.rrt or to his successor rnd thereby, camsed disal>pearalce of thc evidence in z Il tl-re above rnentioned lirur crimes. Hencc, the ingredit'r 1s of Section 13(1)(a) of thc Act and Sect.ior-r 2Ol of IPC rre attracted against the pct it ioner.

5.2 Ilr: further submittcd that init: tior-r of the departmental proceedings and criminal plr cecclings are different and distinct. It is well settlcr. ttrat rnere pendency of the departrnentzrl proceedings cannot be a ground to seek quashing of the criminal c€rs,r Admittedly, the petitioncr has approached this Cort't and hled W.P.No.2469I ol 2022 seeking to quash tl-rr' lepartrnental 8 proceedings basing upon the pendency of criminal proceedings and the said writ petition was allowed granting stay of departrrrental proceedings for a period of two years and t1'rc said periocl has expired. He further submitted that the Investigating Officer exarnined 2O witnesses and entire invcstigation is cornpleted. However, the application subrnitted by the Departrnent for grant of salction for filing final report before the concerned Court is pending before the Governrnent and the petitioner is not entitled to seek quashing of the proceedings in the present crlrne Analvsis:

6. I'l-ris Court considered the rival sr.rbrnissions rnade by the respective perrties and perused the rnaterial available on record. It is not in dispute that the petitioner worked as Inspector of police, ACB, Karirnnagar range from 07.ll.2OIZ to O2.O4.2O21. There are specific allegations against the petitioner that whiie he was discharging his duties as Inspector of police, ACB, faiied to hand over the case the trap arnounts of Rs.30,OOO/_ 1n Karimnagar range, he properties,

1.e 9 Cr.No.O7lACB-KNR/20 17, Rs. 1,50,OOO/- ar: r in Cr.No.O9IACB-KNR/2O 17 and Rs. 1 I Cr.No.O4lACB KNR/2O17. On rec.eipt l ornaments seized in Crirne No.14/AC:. one i-phone )o,ooo/- in - the gold i KNR/2OO9, A.Thirupattri got the items weighed .t rd, noticing variations in the u,eight, got them checke 1 by a gold appraiser, who for.rnd that the iterns rnent-i I rcd in Seria,l Nos. 11 and 16 Lo 20, which were suppos: 1to be gold, were in fact fake. The DSP, ACB, Waran3 r1 range was appointed as Enquiry Ofhccr to conduct enquiry and strbrnit report. Accordingly, he conducter I enquiry ald srrbmitted report on 26 .OB.2O2 1 , wherein I e specihcally stated that the petitioner, while discharginl; his duties as Inspector of Police, ACB, Karirnnagar, has r.c Lally failed in handing over the case properties, dr-e to r.. 1 ich, the trap arnounts as stated above including the gold )roperty were misplaced and he has not taken any effortr; t.o report ttre sarne to his superior ofhcer and thr.rs, th: -e is a gross negligence towards his duties. 7 . The record further reveals that - esing on the said enquiry report, the Government of '- :langana has granted sanction to initiate the disciplinary : roceedings as l0 well as crirninal proceedings against the petition er uid_e Memo No.124,zSpl/At/2o2t-t, dated Ot.l1.2O2l. Pursuant to the sarne, the DSp, ACB, Warangal range lodged a cornpiaint and basing on the sarne, the present crime was registered for the offences punishable under Section i3(1)(a) of the AcL and Section 2O1 of IpC.

8. No.oT,zACB-KNR/20 l7; Frorn peruszrl of the complaint, it reveals that there are specific allegations against the petitioner that he has not deposited nor handed over ttre itern No.15 i.e. trap arnount of Rs.3O,OOO/ to Sri A.Thirupathi, in Crime itern No.1O i.e. trap amount of Rs.1,5O,OOO/- ard item i.e. one iptrone (S) to Sri No.1 1 A.Thirupathi in Crirne No.O9IACB_KNR/2O 17; item No.6 i.e., trap arnount of Rs. 1,OO,OOO/_ to A.Thirupathi in Crime No.O4/ ACB KNR/2O18 and on receipt of the gold ornarnents seized in Crirne No.14/ACB_KNR/2OO9, A.Thimpathi, weighed the iterns and found variations in ttre weight and therefore, got the same checked with gold appraiser and founcl that itcms rnentioned at Serial Nos.11 and 16 to 20 which were supposed to be goid items were found to be fake gold. 1t 9 It is very much relevalt to ext'act Section 13(1)(a) of the Act, which reads as follows: " 13. Crirninal misconduct by a pr-rblic : ( rvant: ( 1) A public servant is said to cornmir lhe offence of crim inal m isconducl , (a) if he dishonestly or fraudulently I1 sappropriates or otherwise converts for his own u I ) anv property entmsted to hirn or any property urr ler kris control 'l h er person so as a public servant or allows an1,r ( to do;"

10. Ttrere is a specihc allegation against the petitioner that while he was discharging his : uties, he has not deposited the seized trap arnounts and ::,her iterrrs in four crirnes and car.rsed disappearance of he evidence. Hence, this Court is of the considered vit v that prirna facie the ingredients of Section 13(1)(a) of ie Act would attract against the petitioner. 1 1. In I{.H. I{arnaladini supra, ttre Hon'bi, , Apex Court held that to attract clause (d) of sub-sectior 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act i1) of Section it rnust be specifically alleged that the public servan - obtained for hirnself or for any other person any vall.r .ble thing or pecuniary advantage. Wkrere there is no sll :h allegation, and no rnaterial to show that the accused aE;r eed to accept ]l i t; t2 : or accepted any gratification, or dishonestly misappropriated or converted to his own Llse any property entrusted to him, the essential ingrcdients of ,,criminal rnisconduct" trnder Scction i 3(1)(d) are not satisl-red. Consequentiy, the offence punishable under Section r3(2) of the Act would also not be attracted. The Court therefore, held that, in the absencc of thcse foundational allegations, no case was made out to proceed against the accused for offences under Sections 13(i)(d) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Cormption Act.

72. The principle relied upon by thre learned counsel for the petitioner is not applicable to the facts and circurnstances of the casc. It is already stated supra, there are specific allegations levellecl against the petitioner. to attract the ingredients of Section 13(1)(a) of the Act and Section 201 of IpC.

13. The record further reveals that the petitioner had approached this Court afld filed W.p.No.2469l of 2022 seeking a writ of mandamus declaring the charge rnemo dated 3O.O8.2O2 1 issued by respondent No.2 therein as illega-l and consequently sought direction to respondent No.3 thergin not to conduct disciplinary proceedings pending enquiry in FIR No.O3/ACB-KNR7 2O22, dated 22.03.2022, and the said r.t'rit petition wiL I aLlowed on

31.1O.2022 granting stay of the proceedinll against the petitioner for a period of trvo years and 1l rther it was made clear that after expiry of two years, he said stay order would get automatically vacated ant liberty was given to the respondents therein to < ontinue the departmental proceedings and the sai<1 order was confirmed in Writ Appea1 No.478 of 2023 rtr t h a liberty to the appellants therein to go ahead with thc lcpartmental enquiry against ttre petitioner in pursuancc rf the charge merno dated 28.O8.2021. l+. It that mere rendency of departmental proceedings does not entitle tlI : petitioner to seek quashing of the criminal prc < ccdings, AS departmental proceedings and criminal pr-, ceedings are different and distinct.

15. Insofar as the other contention I aised by the learned cor.rnsel for the petitioner that tLre )etitioner has already handed over the entire case prope: ies in all the crirnes to one G.Sadaiah, Head Constable e .r rd he has not l4 taken care of the sarne, hence, the petitioner has lodged a complaint on 1g.og.2021 to take action against the Head Constable and the concerncd Ofhcer has not taken any action are concerned, whcther the petitioner has handcd over the case properties to his sr.rcccssors or not; and whether he rnisused the case propcrties and caused disappearance of evidence or not, arc clisputcd questions of fact, the same cannot bc adjudiczrted in the present criminal petition. Even according to thc learned Special Pubiic Prosecutor, entire investigation is completed and the Investigation Ofhcer has sr_rbmitted Iinal rcport. The Departryrent m'ade a request to the Governrncnt for grant of sanction to file final reporl before the concerncd Court to proceed w.ith the rnatter against the petitioncr and the same is pending.

16. It is settied principle that the power under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. to quash the First Information Report is to be exercised sparingly and with great caution, and only in the rarest of rare cases, where the ailegations in the FIR, even if taken at their face va,lue, do not disclosc the commission of any offence. The Hon'ble Apex Court in State of Haryana v. r t5 Bhajan Lal2 issued a note of caution that sl-r: r extraordinary power cannot be invoked to stifle a legitirnatt: investigation or to ernbark upon an inquiry into the tn-rth or rtLrerwise of the allcgations. An FIR is not required to be an err ;yclopedia of all facts relating to the alleged offence. It is onl't intended to set the criminal law in motion and to enable : re investigating agency to collect rnaterial to ascertain tlt ) Lmth of the allcgations. An FIR is not required to be an encyclr paredia of a1i facts relating to thc alleged offence. It is only intendecl t ) set the criminal law in motion and to enable the investigating agenci to collect material to ascertain the truth of the allegations. The law dor s not require that all the ingredients of the offence must be spelled r ut in the FIR. As observed in Rajesh Bajaj v. State (NCT cf Delhi)3, the absence of detailed particulars or one or two ngredients does not jr.rstify c1-r.ashing at the threshold if a fac tual loundation for tkre alleged offence exists.

1.7 For the foregoing reasons as '",e11 as the principles laid down by the Hon'lole Apex Corrt supra, this Court does not frnd any ground to quash thr proceedings in FIR No.O3/ACB-KNR/2O22 of ACB P: ice Station, Karirnnagar Range against the petitioner. , (1992) Supp (1) SCC 335 r (1999J 3 SCC 259 l6 t.

18. In the result, the criminal petition is dismissed. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous applications, if any, pending in this petition stand closed. //TRUE COPY/i To, SD/- T.SRINIVASAREDDY ASSISTANT REGISTRARe SECTION OFFICER Karimnagar.

1. The Special Judge for SpE & ACB Cases at Karimnagar. 2. The Station House Officer, ACB Karimnagar Range police Statron, 3. One CC to Dy. Supdt. of police ACB Karimnagar Range, Karimnagar 4. One CC to Mr. CH VENKAT RAMAN Advocate [OPUC] 5. Two CC to Mr. T TS) Advocate [OpUC] BALA MOHAN REDDY, (SC FOR ACB SPL PP

6. Two CD Copies RC/PSL Y4- HIGH COURT DATED: 3011012025 ORDER CRLP.No.3001 ot 2022 j: a '- '"::::.-. \'.' '' , j" \ , lr'' I I tiIC iW i ; '11.;p1.g, Ec \J * I -) \. ) The Criminal Petition is Dismissed. qp]r Acdq' ' $11^5 /n\ \\\^