Dismissed

M. Raghu, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Telangana HC21 Feb 2017CRLP/1318/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal petition to quash an FIR alleging cheating and embezzlement under the IPC, the High Court rejected the argument that an Accounts Officer lacked authority to pass bills prepared by a technical team. The court held the complaint was not vexatious and allowed the investigation to proceed.

What did the court decide?

Criminal Petition dismissed at the admission stage; no quashing of FIR granted.

M. Raghu, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh — Corruption | Telangana HC (2017)

¶1

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. SHANKAR NARAYANA CRIMINAL PETITION No.1318 OF 2017

¶2

ORDER:

¶3

The present Criminal Petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, is filed seeking to quash the First Information Report in Crime No.181 of 2016 of II Town Gudivada Police Station, Krishna District.

¶4

The petitioner, who is accused, alleged to have committed the offences punishable under Sections 409, 406 and 420 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC).

¶5

Sri G. R. Sudhakar, learned counsel for the petitioner, while pleading innocence and false implication of the petitioner, would submit that the petitioner, who is Accounts Officer (Senior Accountant), has no role to play in generating fake bills and embezzlement of municipal funds and, in fact, a technical team would examine the work done and prepares bills and after the bills were processed, they would be passed and the petitioner cannot be viewed as having authority to pass the bills without there being any material at all and, therefore, requests to quash the First Information Report.

¶6

The learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State of Andhra Pradesh would strongly resist the request. It is, according to him, that the complaint lodged by the Commissioner, Gudivada Municipality, would prima facie establish the offences having

¶7

¶8

ASNJ Crl. P No.1318 of 2017

¶9

committed by the petitioner and unless the petitioner subscribes his signatures to the bills, the question of drawing and misappropriating the amount does not arise.

¶10

The amount involved is Rs.8,90,153/-. The said amount was drawn from the municipal funds without executing any work of providing C.C. road to Chanti Apartment to G. Seetha Ramaih House with an estimated cost of Rs.9,99,000/-. It is no doubt true, the technical team might have indulged in submitting the measurements, but, that itself cannot be a ground, in the circumstances of the case, to view that the petitioner is absolutely innocent and that it cannot be said that the complaint is vexatious nor can it be said that the investigation would amount to abuse of process of law, as sought to be viewed by the learned counsel for the petitioner. Hence, the said submission is rejected.

¶11

Therefore, the Criminal Petition is dismissed, at the admission stage itself.

¶12

As a sequel thereto, Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in the Criminal Petition stand closed.

¶13

A. SHANKAR NARAYANA, J

¶14

February 21, 2017. PV

M. Raghu, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M. Raghu, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mohammed Abdul Ahmed Khan , Mohammed Ahmed Khan Vs The State of Telangana

Vijender Kedia Vs The State of Telangana.,rep.,Pp

A.V.A. Karthik Sharma Vs The STate

Tadi Yesubabu, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Mekala Babaiah , Golla Babaiah Vs The State of Telangana.,rep.,Pp

Abdul Rafe Khan Vs The State of Telangana