THE HON'BLE Dr. JUSTICE G. RADHA RANI
CRIMINAL PETITION No.69 of 2014
ORDER:
This Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioner-accused under section 482 of Cr.P.C. to quash the proceedings in CC. No.862 of 2013 on the file of XIV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, City Criminal Courts at Nampally, Hyderabad.
2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was working as District Co-Operative Officer, Hyderabad (urban). She received a complaint from the de-facto complainant (respondent No. 2 herein) in which he stated that he was a member share holder of the Advocates Mutually Aided Co-Operative Society (Credit) Limited and an amount of Rs 54,63,560/- was misappropriated by the Board. On the said complaint made by the respondent No.2 dated 18-01-2010 and 15-07-2010, the petitioner ordered the Divisional Co-Operative Officer, Charminar Division, Hyderabad to conduct an enquiry and to submit a detailed report. The Divisional Co-operative Officer in turn entrusted the job to Sub-Divisional Co-Operative Officer, Charminar Mandal, for a detailed enquiry and report. The Sub-Divisional Co- Operative Officer, Charminar Mandal, submitted a preliminary enquiry report vide Lr. RC. No.7/2010-CMR, dated 29-07-2010, and stated that there was no difference of net profit as alleged by the respondent No.2 and there was a calculation error in his statement. Therefore, the petitioner appointed a Senior Inspector, Secunderabad Dr.GRR,J 2 Crl.P. No.69 of 2014 Mandal, Office of the Divisional Co-Operative Officer to verify the audit report thoroughly with reference to the report submitted by the Sub-Divisional Co-Operative Officer, Charminar Mandal, to initiate appropriate action as per the provisions of APMACS Act 1995. The Senior Inspector/Auditor, Secunderabad submitted in his report that he verified the audit reports and found all calculations to be correct, but stated that there were administrative irregularities as the Society had violated the provisions of bye laws No.24 and 26. The petitioner addressed a letter in RC No.2152 of 2008 dated 28-06-2011 to the Commissioner for Co-Operation and Registrar of Co-Operative Societies to take further action by ordering an enquiry into the affairs of the Society under Section 29 of APMACS Act, 1995 by appointing an Enquiry Officer not below the rank of Deputy Registrar. The respondent No. 2 sent a legal notice to the petitioner on 18-07-2011 alleging that she committed an offence under Section 166 IPC, for dereliction of duties. The petitioner gave a reply on 25-08-2011. Not satisfied with her reply, the respondent No. 2 filed a private complaint thrice in the Magistrate Court, but the Court did not take cognisance of the complaint or the offence alleged against the petitioner. For the fourth time, the Court below had taken cognizance and sent summons to the petitioner.
3. Aggrieved by the issuance of summons to her, the petitioner filed this petition on the ground that the Magistrate ought not to have taken cognizance of the offence as no offence was made out against Dr.GRR,J 3 Crl.P. No.69 of 2014 the petitioner under Section 166 IPC, when no material was placed to allege that the petitioner, being a public servant, disobeyed law with an intent to cause injury to any person, continuation of proceedings was an abuse of process of Court and prayed to quash the proceedings in C.C. No.862 of 2013 on the file of XIV ACMM, Nampally, Hyderabad.
4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor for respondent No.1. There is no representation for respondent No.2-de-facto complainant. Perused the record.
5. From the record, it would disclose that the petitioner was working as a District Co-Operative Officer, Hyderabad and as a public servant, she had taken all the steps she could take within her authority and capacity on receiving the complaint from the de-facto complainant with regard to misappropriation of funds. Prior sanction was also required under Section 197 Cr.P.C., to take action against the public servants for the acts done by them in connection with discharge of their official duties. The requirement of sanction from the Government is a protection offered to public servants to discharge their duties efficiently without fear of initiation of criminal action against them and to protect them from retaliatory, revengeful and frivolous proceedings.
6. The learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in D. Devaraja v. Owais Sabeer Dr.GRR,J 4 Crl.P. No.69 of 2014 Hussain1, wherein after considering several judgments with regard to scope of Section 197 Cr.P.C., the Hon'ble Apex Court held that "to decide whether sanction is necessary, the test is whether the act is totally unconnected with official duty or whether there is a reasonable connection with the official duty". It also held that, "whether sanction is necessary or not may have to be determined at any stage of proceedings".
The Hon'ble Apex Court further held that, "77. It is well settled that an application under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code is maintainable to quash proceedings which are ex facie bad for want of sanction, frivolous or in abuse of process of Court. If, on the face of the complaint, the act alleged appears to have a reasonable relationship with official duty, where the criminal proceeding is apparently prompted by mala fides and instituted with ulterior motive, power under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code would have to be exercised to quash the proceedings, to prevent abuse of process of court".
7. Considering the above judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court and as no sanction was obtained from the Government for proceeding against the petitioner and considering that no material was placed by the de-facto complainant to show that the petitioner, being a public servant, disobeyed law with an intent to cause injury to any person attracting the provisions of Section 166 IPC, it is considered fit to quash the proceedings in C.C. No.862 of 2013 on the file of XIV 1 2020 SCC (7) Vol. 4 (695) Dr.GRR,J 5 Crl.P. No.69 of 2014 Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Nampally, Hyderabad as continuation of proceedings is an abuse of process of Court.
8. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed quashing the proceedings against the petitioner-accused in C.C. No.862 of 2013 on the file of XIV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Nampally, Hyderabad.
Miscellaneous Petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.
_____________________ Dr. G. RADHA RANI, J 28th October, 2021 KTL