Dismissed

Pettla Venkata Anjaneyulu v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC6 Mar 2024CRLP/775/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A Junior Assistant in a co-operative society sought quashing of an FIR registered for criminal breach of trust involving misappropriation of about Rs.50 lakh, contending he was not a public servant. The court found specific allegations and overt acts, held the matter fit for trial, and dismissed the petition.

What the court decided

AI extract

Pettla Venkata Anjaneyulu Vs The State of Andhra… — Quashing and FIR | Andhra Pradesh HC (2024)

¶1

?■ <4 r

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI

¶3

THURSDAY, THE SEVENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA

¶6

CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 775 OF 2020

¶7

Between:

¶8

Pettia Venkata Anjaneyulu, S/o. Venkateswarlu, Aged 39 years, Hindu Occ Junior Assistant, D.B.C.W.O Office, R/o Dharavari Thota, Ongole.

¶9

...Petltioner/A-3

¶10

The State of Andhra Pradesh, Station House Officer, Ongole Taluk Police Station, Prakasam Rep. by Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Amaravati.

¶11

Pola Bhaskar, Occ: District Collector/Chairman,^{DistrictBackward} Classes Service, Cooperative Societies Limited, Prakasam^District Ongole, AP.

¶12

...Respondents

¶13

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 FIR No.512/2019 on the file of the Station House Officer, Ongole Taluk Police Station, Ongole, Prakasam District, AP and quash the same in so far as the

¶14

petitioner/A3 is concerned as the same is illegal, arbitrary and abuse of process of law.

¶15

I.A. NO: 2 OF 2020

¶16

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 grant stay of all further proceedings including arrest of the petitioner/A3 in FIR No.512/2019 on the file of the Station House Officer, Ongole Taluk Police Station, Ongole Prakasam District, AP pending disposal of the above Criminal Petition. This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri Kalyan C R , Advocate for the Petitioner and the Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondents

¶17

The Court made the following Order:

¶18

APHC010053342020

¶19

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI [3396]

¶20

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶21

THURSDAY ,THE SEVENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶22

PRESENT

¶23

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 775/2020

¶24

Between:

¶25

Pettia Venkata Anjaneyulu

¶26

...PETITIONER/ACCUSED

¶27

AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh and ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S) Others

¶28

Counsel for the Petitioner/accused:

¶29

1.KALYANCR

¶30

Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S):

¶31

PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP)

¶32

The Court made the following:

¶33

ORDER:

¶34

The instant petition under Section 482 of Code of Criminal^Procedure, 1973^ has been filed by the Petitioner/Accused No.3, seeking to quash the proceedings against him in Crime No.512 of 2019 of Ongole Taluq Police Station, Prakasam District, which was registered for the offence punishable under Section 409 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.^

¶35

The present case has been registered based on the report submitted by the Chairman, District Backward Classes Service Co-operative Society

¶36

1 for short ‘Cr.P.C’

¶37

2 for short -I.P.C.’

¶38

¶39

Limited, Ongole to the District Collector, Prakasam District alleging that the Petitioner/Accused No.3 and seven others misappropriated the funds^to the tune of Rs.50,10,500/- that occurred prior to 28.09.2019.

¶40

Aggrieved by the registration of the said crime, Petitioner/Accused No.3 filed the present petition seeking quashment of proceedings against him, on the following grounds;

¶41

a. The allegations do not disclose any offence under^{Section409IPC.}

¶42

b. The petitioner is not a public servant within the meaning of Section 21 of IPC and therefore, he cannot be made liable for the offence under Section 409 IPC.

¶43

Arguments Advanced at the Bar

¶44

Heard Sri C.R.Kalyan, learned counsel for the Petitioner and Ms.D.Prasanna Lakshmi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor representing the State/Respondent Nos.1 and 2. 5. Learned counsel for the Petitioner in elaboration to what was stated in the Petition, would submit that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the case without any truth to the allegations mentioned in the complaint. It is alleged that the Petitioner misused the Government funds, which had been released for installation of CC Cameras including the internet at the godown of Adharana tools and the Petitioner had executed the works. It is contended by the learned counsel that the enquiry report^cannotbethe basis for lodging a criminal complaint against the Petitioner. Learned counsel further submits that there are no ingredients^{toattracttheoffence}

¶45

¶46

punishable under Section 409 IPC against the Petitioner. Therefore, continuation of criminal proceedings against the Petitioner is an abuse of process of law. Hence, prayed to quash the proceedings against the Petitioner.

¶47

Refuting the same, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor^wouldsubmit that the Petitioner being the Junior Assistant in DBCWO Office, Prakasam joined hands with the other accused and committed misappropriati^on of funds and caused loss to the tune of Rs.50,10,500/-^{totheGovernment} Exchequer. There are specific allegations against the Petitioner which would attract the offence under Section 409 IPC. There are no grounds to quash the proceedings against the Petitioner at this stage. Hence, prayed to dismiss the petition.

¶48

Point for Determination

¶49

Having heard the submissions of the learned counsel representing both the parties, now the point that would emerge for^{determinationis:}

¶50

Whether there are any justifiable grounds for quashment^of proceedings against Petitioner/Accused No. 3 in Crime No.512 of 2019 of Ongole Taluq Police Station, Prakasam District, which was registered for the offence punishable under Section 409 IPC?

¶51

Determination by the Court

¶52

A bare perusal of Section 482 makes it clear that the Code envisages that inherent powers of the High Court are not limited^{oraffectedsoasto} make orders as may be necessary; (i) to give effect to any order under the

¶53

Code or, (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or, otherwise (iii) to secure ends of justice. A court while sitting in Section 482 jurisdiction is not functioning as a court of appeal or a court of revision. It must exercise its powers to do real and substantial justice, depending on the facts and circumstances of the case. These powers must be invoked for compelling reasons of abuse of process of law or glaring injustice, which are against sound principles of criminal jurisprudence.

¶54

It is contended by the learned counsel for the Petitioner that the Petitioner/Accused No.3 is working as a Contractual Employee working under the Government and as such, he is not a public servant as defined under Section 21 IPC, and hence, he cannot be made liable for the offence under Section 409 IPC. However, perusal of letter in R.C.No.94/2019/BC, dated 28.09.2019 addressed by the District Collector, Prakasam District to the Superintendent of Police, Prakasam District would reveal that Petitioner/Accused No.3 is the Junior Assistant in District Backward Classes Service Co-operative Society Limited, Ongole and he is a regular employee and has misappropriated an amount of Rs.45,000/-.

¶55

In the instant case, no stay has been granted. The FIR has been registered on 21.10.2019 and the present petition was filed on 06.02.2020. As no stay of investigation has been granted, the investigation^wouldhave been completed by now. The judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Ram Niwas Gupta v. State of West Bengal and another^ is not helpful to the

¶56

^ 2023 see OnLine eal 675

¶57

¶58

case of the Petitioner as there are specific overt^{actsattributedagainstthe} Petitioner in the commission of the offence under Section⁴⁰⁹ I PC. The truth or otherwise of the allegations leveled against^{thePetitionerhastobe} revealed during trial. Hence, with the above, this^{Courtconcludesthatthe} allegations made against the Petitioner, are sufficient^{enoughforthetrialto} be taken up and thereby, the proceedings are not advisable^tobequashed. It is not open to the Court to stifle proceedings by^{enteringintomeritsofthe} contentions made on behalf of the Petitioner/Accused^{No.3andthecriminal} proceedings cannot be quashed at this stage since the^{ingredientsofthe} offence alleged against the Petitioner are prima facie^{madeoutandthere} are factual aspects to be considered during trial and^{hence,thepetition} deserves dismissal.