Allowed

P. Sesha Talpa, Vijayawada - 11. v. the State of a.P.,Reptd.by P.P., Hyderabad, and Anr.

Telangana HC24 Aug 2018CRLP/9581/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This Court quashed criminal proceedings against the petitioner/A-2 for misappropriation from an ATM. Relying on departmental findings stating the petitioner was only negligent in verification and not a custodian of cash, the court held that the acts did not attract IPC Section 409 and further proceedings constituted an abuse of process of law.

What did the court decide?

Further proceedings in Crime No. 913 of 2007, C.C.No. 1044 of 2008 against the petitioner/A-2 for offence under Section 409 I.P.C. are quashed.

P. Sesha Talpa, Vijayawada - 11. Vs the State of a.P.,Reptd.by… — Corruption | Telangana HC (2018)

¶1

SMT. JUSTICE T. RAJANI

¶2

CRIMINAL PETITION No. 9581 OF 2011

¶3

O R D E R :

¶4

This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., seeking to quash the Proceedings in Crime No. 913 of 2007 of Saroornagar Police Station, Cyberabad, in C.C.No. 1044 of 2008 on the file of the Court of XI Metropolitan Magistrate, Ranga Reddy district at L.B.Nagar, registered for the offence punishable under section 409 of I.P.C., against the petitioner/ A-2.

¶5

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner/A-2 and the learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent/State.

¶6

The allegation as per the F.I.R., are that there

¶7

was misappropriation of some amount to an extent of Rs.10,00,000=00 [Rs. Ten Lakhs only] from the A.T.M., [Automated

¶8

Teller Machine] of Canara Bank and that the first accused and this petitioner/A-3 were responsible, being the key-holders of the A.T.M.

¶9

The counsel for the petitioner submits that there was a departmental enquiry against A-1 to A-3 and in that departmental enquiry there are categorical findings against only A-1 who is responsible for the said misappropriation but however the observation against this petitioner is that he being the one of the second key-holders was guilty of lapses and minor punishment was imposed against him. However, the proceedings in the departmental enquiry report show that this petitioner/A-2 is not the

¶10

¶11

custodian of the cash and that he was only negligent with regard to verifying and tallying physical cash.

¶12

Hence, in view of the above, this Court opines that the alleged acts of this petitioner/A-2 would not attract the offence punishable under section 409 of I.P.C. Hence, further proceedings in C.C.No. 1044 of 2008 on the file of the Court of XI Metropolitan Magistrate, Ranga Reddy district at L.B.Nagar, against the petitioner/A-2 would result in abuse of process of law. Hence, further proceedings in Crime No. 913 of 2007 of Saroornagar Police Station, Cyberabad, in C.C.No. 1044 of 2008 on the file of the Court of XI Metropolitan Magistrate, Ranga Reddy district at L.B.Nagar, registered for the offence punishable under section 409 of I.P.C., against the petitioner/A-2 are quashed.

¶13

As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions if any, pending in this criminal

¶14

petitions stand disposed of.

¶15

2 3 -0 8 -2 0 1 8 I s L

¶16

¶17

SMT. JUSTICE T. RAJANI

¶18

CRIMINAL PETITION No. 9581 OF 2011

¶19

[RESULT : ALLOWED AGAINST A-2]

¶20

Circulation No:. 276 Date:23-08-2018 Court Master : I s L

P. Sesha Talpa, Vijayawada - 11. v. the State of a.P.,Reptd.by P.P., Hyderabad, and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P. Sesha Talpa, Vijayawada - 11. v. the State of a.P.,Reptd.by P.P., Hyderabad, and Anr.

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

H.V. Ramana, Vs the State of Ap Rep by Its Pp Hyd., and Another

Guntreddi Ramesh Babu, Vs Bandalapu Venkataramana and Another

Nirmala Devi Bung, Vs the State of Ap Rep by Its Pp Hyd., and Another

Thota Suneel , Venkata Suneel, W.G.Dt and Anr., Vs the State, Sho, Mogalthur Ps., and Anr, Rep Pp.

Ullenga Anil Kumar Vs Ullenga Nirmala Jyothi

Syed Safdar Ali Vs M.A Majeed