Counsel also relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in N.Raghavender v. State of Andhra Pradesh, CBI

1. The State of Telangana, rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court Buildings, Hyderabad.

2. Sri.Rathoq Mohan Singh, Superintending Engineer Central Zone, Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, Hyderabad. ...Respondents/De facto - Complainant 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 call for the records relating to in C.C.No.33812017, on the file of the Xll Additional Chief Metropolitan firlagistrate at Hyderabad, registered against the petitioners herein, by holding the same as illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the Provisions of Criminal Procedure Code and quash the same.. l.A. NO: 1OF 2018 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 of all further proceedings including appearance of the Petitioners/Accused Nos.10 to '12 C.C.No.33812017, on the file of the Xll Additional Chief lvletropolitan Magistrate at Hyderabad, pending disposal of the above Criminal Petition. This Petition :oming on. for hearing, upon perusing the l,rlemorandum of Grounds of Crirn nal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of sri s LAKSHMI KANTH, Advocate for the petitioners and Mr. K. siddharth Rao, Public Prosecutor (1G) on behalf of the Respondent No. 1 and None Appeared for the Respondent No.2. The Court made the following: ORDER HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE I(SURENDER CRIMINAL PETITION No.5O32 OF 2O1a JUDGMENT:

1. This Criminal Petition is Iiled to quash the proceedings against the petitioners/Al0 to Al2 in.C.C.No.338 of 2017, registered for the offences under Sections 4O9,42O,511 t/w 34 of IPC, on the file of XII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, at Hyderabad.

2. The petitioners, who earlier worked as employees in the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation (GHMC), were arrayed as A10 to Al2 in the charge sheet. A complaint was filed by the Superintendent Engineer of GHMC stating that his predecessor officers, who are the Executive Engineers of GHMC, entered into a contract with the contractors enlisted in the GHMC for the execution of desilting of Nalas in the Central Zone. The contractor, while submitting the weighbridge bills for pa5rments, has submitted fake and fabricated bills in the ,office of the Executive Engineer, and has also fraudulently used non- transportation vehicles for transportation of the desilted material. Thus, it is alleged that the contractors have committed fraud by submitting fake bills and fraudulently using non transport z vehicles for transporting the desilted materia-I, causing loss to the GHMC.

3. On the basis of the said complaint, a crime w-as registered by the CCS, Hyderabad. After concluding investigation, a charge sheet was laid against the petitioners/Alo to Al2 and also A1 to

4. During the course of investigation, witnesses wore examined and weigh bills rvere also seized. According to the investigation, the petitioners, A.9 and A10, have entered the details, of fake bills in the MB Books.

5. Learned Senior Counsel appearing on be.ealf of the petitioners/A10 to A12 would submit that the Ccmmissioner, GHMC addressed a letter to the Engineer-in-Chief, public Heatth & ME Department, Telangana State, dated 10.O1.i102O. In the said letter, it is mentioned that there was no financial loss to the GHMC, and no rveighbridge was erected/installed, and further no department staff were deployed for monitoring by the concerned. Dy. Commissioner. The bil1s for desilting were not received by the accounts sedion for making pa5rment and there is no loss to GHMC. 3

6. The said document is a letter, which is addressed to the Engineer-in-Chief and signed on behalf of the Commissioner, GHMC. The said letter cannot be looked into in the present quash proceedings to arrive at a conclusion that the allegations leveled against the petitioners are incorrect, 'The said letter has to be proved during trial. The admissibility of the letter and the correctness of the contents of the letter cannot be determined in this quash petition.

7. karned Senior Counsel also relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in N.Raghavender v. State of Andhra Pradesh, CBI1. The Honble Supreme Court, while dealing with a case of criminal misappropriation, held that where there was no loss to the Bank and conspiracy was not proved, conviction cannot be sustained. Learned Senior Counsel submits that once there is no loss, a suspicion, however strong, cannot form basis to prosecute the petitioners.

8. In the judgment cited by the learned Senior Cor.rnsel in the case of N.Raghavender, the Hon'ble Supreme Court was dealing with a case which was tried and convicted by the Special Court. On the basis of the evidence adduced during the course of trial, t 12021; L8 supreme court cases 70 4 I the Honble Supreme Court found that the ingredienl.s of cheating and conspiracy were not made out.

9. In a case of discharge before the trial Cotrrt or quash proceedings bef,ore this Court, the Court has to sr:e whether a pima facie casr: is made out and whether there is a strong suspicion regarcling the involvement of the accused.

10. This Court cannot rely on any documents, fil.ed during quash proceedings, unless such documents are admitted by both the parties and can be relied upon by this Court, without any further proof.

11. The document filed before this Court is a let:er that was addressed by the Commissioner, GHMC to the Engineer-in-Chief, Public Hea1th Department. The said letter was signed on behalf of the Commissioner, GHMC. The said letter cannot bt,: looked into at this stage in quash proceedings. The author of ttie said letter has to be examined, and the contents have to be proved 1n accordance with law before the Court below, before accepting the contents of the document, that there is no loss to GI IMC or that bills were not raised by the contractors. 5

12. Option is left open to the petitioners to raise all the grounds in the Court below.

13. Accordingly, Criminal Petition is dismissed. Consequently, miscellaneous applications, if any, sha1l stand closed. SD/. L LAKSHMI BABU ASSISTANT REGISTRAR To, //TRUE COPYII ECTION OFFICER 1 Tte.Xll Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Nampally, Hyderabad (Cail for Records)

2. The Station Officer, Central Crime Station police Station, Hyderabad 3. TWO CCs to the Public prosecutor, High Court at Hyderabad. (OUT) 4. One CC to SRl. S LAKSHMI KANTH, Advocate tOpUCl 5 Two CD Copies RC ry. HIGH COURT DATED: ,,1210312025 ORDER CRLP.No.5032 of 2018 t/:at"'t r ./ te' T4r A- ['; 09 iiP 8Zffi y o t t:A' ,9 DA CS , Accordingly, Criminal petition is dismissed a\ q\r> I tI\