Partly allowed

D.D.M.S.S.Srinivas, v. The Asst. Divisional Engineer

Telangana HC25 Aug 2014CRLP/9347/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Dismissing a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash criminal proceedings, the Court held that mere initiation of departmental enquiry or payment of the amount does not justify quashing at the initial investigative stage, citing Supreme Court precedents.

What did the court decide?

Direction not to arrest the petitioner/accused till the completion of investigation or filing of the report.

D.D.M.S.S.Srinivas, Vs The Asst. Divisional Engineer — Quashing and FIR | Telangana HC (2014)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE T.SUNIL CHOWDARY CRIMINAL PETITION No.9347 of 2010

¶2

ORDER:

¶3

This petition is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the proceedings against the petitioner/accused in Crime No.51 of 2009 of Seethampeta Police Station, Srikakulam District.

¶4

The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the departmental enquiry was initiated against the petitioner and therefore, registration of criminal case is not maintainable. He further submitted that the petitioner paid the alleged misappropriation amount to the concerned department.

¶5

The learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the allegations made in the complaint constitute the alleged offences.

¶6

This Court can quash the proceedings by exercising inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. in the following circumstances :- (1) if the allegations made in the complaint do not constitute any offence much less the offence alleged in the complaint, (2) if the registration of crime and continuation of the investigation would amount to abuse of the process of the Court, (3) even if the allegations made in the complaint ex facie taken to be true and correct, there is no possibility to convict the petitioner, (4) if the registration of the case and entrustment of the investigation to the police is prohibited by any law for the time being in force or (5) to secure the ends of the justice.

¶7

A perusal of the record reveals that the Assistant Divisional Engineer, APEPDCL, Seethampeta lodged a complaint to the Station House Officer, Seethampeta on 12.10.2009, who in turn registered a case in Crime No.51 of 2009 under Sections 406, 409 and 420 I.P.C. against the petitioner.

¶8

As per the allegations made in the complaint, the petitioner misappropriated an amount of Rs.4,57,540/- belongs to APEPDCL. Mere initiation of disciplinary proceedings by itself is not a valid ground to quash the proceedings.

¶9

At the time of arguments, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner paid an amount of Rs.4,57,540/- to the department.

¶10

This is not the stage to scrutinize the material available on record in order to ascertain the truthfulness or otherwise of the allegations made in the complaint. The allegations made in the complaint prima facie sufficient to investigate into the matter.

¶11

Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and also the principles enunciated by the Supreme Court in R.P.Kapoor v. [1] [2] State of Punja b and State of Haryana v. Bhajanla l , I am of the considered view that it is not a fit case to quash the proceedings at the initial stage of the investigation.

¶12

The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Station House Officer, Seethampeta may be directed not to arrest the petitioner during the course of investigation.

¶13

A perusal of the record reveals that this Court granted interim stay on 20.09.2010 and the same has been in force till today.

¶14

In view of the earlier orders passed by this Court and also the nature of employment of the petitioner, I am inclined to direct the Station House Officer, Seethampeta not to arrest the petitioner/accused in Crime No.51 of 2009 till completion of the investigation or filing of the report.

¶15

With the above direction, the Criminal Petition is dismissed. Consequently, Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in this

¶16

Criminal Petition shall stand closed.

¶17

________________________ T.SUNIL CHOWDARY, J

¶18

Date: 25.08.2014 Ivd

¶19

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE T.SUNIL CHOWDARY

¶20

CRIMINAL PETITION No.9347 of 2010

¶21

Date: 25.08.2014

¶22

Ivd

¶23

[1] AIR 1960 SC 866

¶24

[2] AIR 1992 SC 604

D.D.M.S.S.Srinivas, v. The Asst. Divisional Engineer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

D.D.M.S.S.Srinivas, v. The Asst. Divisional Engineer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/s. Matuthi Travels , Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Madakam Venkateswara Rao Vs State of Andhra Pradesh

G.Narsimhulu Vs Smt. Sujatha

P.Mahesam, (A2) Vs Smt. P.Madhavi

Smt.M.Rangamma, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Bijjam Purushotham Reddy, Vs The State of a.P., rep. by its P.P., High Court of A.P.