The High Court · 2025

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 in cc No.213 of 2011 on the file of Judicial Magistrate of First class, spr. Mobire court at Mahabubnagar taken on fire U/Sec. 409 IPC and quash the same against the petitioner. l.A. NO: 1 OF 2022 Petition under Section 482 of Cr.p.C praying that in the circumslances 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 in cc No.213 of 2o11on the file of Honorable Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Spl. Mobile Court at Mahabubnagar registered U/Sec. 409 lpC. , This Petitior coming on for hearing, upon perusing the M emorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Siri Ravi Mohan Senior Counsei, representing M/s. Macharla Preeti, Advocate for the Petitioner, Sri E. Ganesh, Assistant Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No. 1- State and of Sri Aiay Kumar Madisetty, Standing Counsel for lhe Respondent No. 2-state. The Court made the following: ORDER 1 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE E.\/.VENUGOPAL CRIMINAL PETITION No.9872 OF 2o22 ORDER: This Criminal Petition is filed seeking to quash the proceedings against the petitioner/accused No.4 in C.C.No.213 of 2011 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Special Mobile Court, at Mahabubnagar (for short, "the trial Court") for the offence punishable under Section 409 of I.P.C.

2. Heard Mr.Ravi Mohan, learned senior counsel representing Ms.S.Preeti, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr.E.Ganesh, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent No.1-State and Mr.M.Ajay Kumar, learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondent No.2-State.

3. The brief facts of the case are that respondent No.2/complainant is the Deputy Director, APDDCF, Milk shed, Mahabubnagar, having its Head Office at Lalapet, Hyderabad which deals with the business of procuring milk from various chilling centres situated in various Districts in the State of Andhra Pradesh including Mahabubnagar District; that the milk- chilling centre at Wanaparthy is being headed by N.Prem Kumar as its Manager. It is alieged that the complainant received certain 2 complaints from the farmers alleging irregularities c'ommitted by accused No.l, upon which an Audit was condl.Lcted during April/May, 2OO2 and misappropriation of funds of th.e Federation to an extent of Rs.2,21,9951- during the period ,998-99 and 2OO!-20O2 uaLs detected. Basing on the said facts ()rime No.307 of 2OO4 was registered against the accused for the offence punishable under Section 4O9 of I.P.C. The same \r/as taken on file and numbered as C.C.No.227 of 2010. The said <,alendar case was transferred to the tria-l Court and re-nrrmbered as C.C.No.213 of 20 11.

4. Learnerl counsel for the petitioner contended that accused Nos. 1, 3, 5 irnd 7 died and accused No.2 u,as dis<:harged; that basing on tht: statements of LWs.7 to 9, the Policr: had falsely implicated the other accused. He further stated that LWs.1 to 6 did not lvhisper about the role of any other acr:used except accused No.I . Therefore, he states that the name of l-he petitioner is not found in the complaint filed by LW1 ald that :.he allegation leveled against the petitioner does not withstand the scrutiny of law. Therefore, he seeks to allow the Criminal Petitiorl. ' n 3

5. Learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.2 contends that the matter requires to be tried. Hence, he seeks to allow this Criminal Petition.

6. The learned Principal District and Sqssions Judge, at Mahabubnagar vide order dated lg.Og.2OIg in Criminal Revision Petition No.32 of 2019 discharged accused No.2 in C.C.No.213 of

2011. Para nos.16, 17 and 18 of the said order are extracted as hereunder: -

16. I have carelully gone through the statements recorded under 16I Cr.P.C. by the investigaLlng officer of Syed Anwar, Munnur Krishnaiah, T.R.Juguraj Prasad, Undyala Srinivasulu, V.Veerachary, Md.yousuf, Dubbakal Surya Narayana, Adhar Sinha, A.Surya Kumari, Ashok Babu and N.Prabhakar. At the outset, I feel it proper to mention that the persons who gave 161 Cr.P_C. statements have been made as accused Iike T.R.Juguraj Prasad (A.4) and V.Veera Chary (A.S). What is the basis for making them as accused is not mentioned in the charge Sheet. It is patent irregularity committed by the investlgating oflicer. Their l6l Cr.P.C. statements are not like a confessional statement and it is not a self-incriminating statement_ So, thcre is no prima facie material to charge sheet them. However, during the pendency of the proceedings itselt both of them died. 17. Now, I have to examine whether therc is any whisper about the role of this petitioner/A.2 in misappropriation o[ funds. I" fOl C..p.C. starements of all the above said witnesses, they have stated that N.prem Kumar who was working as Managcr had misapprop.iated the funds. LWs.l to 6 did not whisper about the role of any other accused, but, suddenly LWs.7 to t have stated that they have information that the petitioner and others have also cooperated the prime accused prem Kumar in misappropriating the funds. What is the basis for their suspicion is not mentioned in their 161 Cr.p.C. statements. 18. As per the proceedings issucd by the competent person right from 1999 to 2001, there was alleged misappropriation ol R;.2,2I,gg5/-. The record itsell speaks that the petitionet /A.2 had, discharged the duties a Manager from 2002 onwards. So, for the misappropriation that had allegedly taken place from 1999 to 2001, the petitioner/A.2 cannot be held liable. When the prosecution makes an accusation against the petitioner/A.2 about the misappropriation, at least the prosecution should have collected p rna facie material that the accused was responsible for haldling the amounts during the relevant period, The investigating oflicer failed ro collect any such prima facie -1i1 . . 4 4rr. This Court, vide order dated 08.02.2011 in W'P No'10063 of 2006 preferred by the petitioner herein, held as follou's: "Thc facts arr: not much in dispute As can be seen from the r')cord, the petitioner processed the file of sanction of Rs 10,O0,O00/- rn favour of il.Prem l(ttnr:rr, in the capacity of Manager, M.C C , Wanaparth /, but not in his persorLai capacity. According to the petitioner, he oull' :rocessed the file anrl it is the Deputy Director who sanctloncd the amount Generally speaking, the power to sanction such a huge amount of Rs-1O,Od,oOb/- is not conferred on the employee working in tlLe rank of Junior Matuger. Thus, I am of the considered opinion that the respondents, white reverting him to the post of Senior Assistant, ought not. to ha",c jmposed the punishment of recovery of Rs 2,50,0110/ from the petitiorer, who was ioncerned only with the process o1 file, and ordeiing such recovery is shockingly disproportionate to ttrat o{ the misconduct allegerl against him. Even otherwise, out of Rs 1(),00,000/ said to havr: been misappropriated, amount of RS.g'45,000/- is already said to havc reen recovered. In tllo circumstances, the writ petition is allorved in part, setting aside the inrl:ugned order to the extent of the punishment of r ecovery of Rs.2,50.0007 fiom the petitioner alone, while uphotdir.rg the pltnishment of reversion lo the next lower post. Further, the respondents are directed to settle th( -etirement benefits of the petitioner and pay the sa rne lr'ithin a periocl of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copl' of this order' No order as to t()sts". '8. Having rcgard to the submissions of both the learned counsel and relying on the decision passed b1' t he Hon'ble Supreme Coult in State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lall, this Court is of the opinion that the allegations made in ttre F'I'R' or complaint are rlo absurd and inherently improbable <:n the basis of which no prtrdent person can ever reach a jlrst con(llusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused' Hence, the proceedings in C.C.No'213 of 2Ol1 on the file of the Iearned Judici.al Magistrate of First Class, Special Mcbile Court, I 1992 supp (1)SCC I ! ; l i i I 5 at Mahabubnagar, in so far as petitioner/ accused No.4 are concerned, stand quashed. 9'',. Accordingly, this Criminal petition is allowed. Miscellaneous Petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed. SD/- A.SREENIVASA REDDY ASS STANT REGISTRAR /ffRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, 1 . The Judicial First Class Magistrate at Mahabubnagar 2. The Station House Officer, Mahabubnagar Rural Police Station, Mahabubnagar.

3. Two CCs to the Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad.[OUT]

4. One CC to M/s. lvlacharla Preeti, Advocate [OPUC] 5. One CC to Sri Ajay Kumar Madisetty, Advocate [OPUC] 6. Two CD Copies VIYDL Pi- HIGH COURT DATED: 0610312025 \ A ORDER CRLP.No.9872 of 2022 c( 4 c o 1 HF- Si4 I(- 0 I APt 2025 ? (;, + {'c.s,,z \-:,..j _ * ALLOWING THE CRIMINAL PETITION "".p,