HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
CRIMINAL PETITION No.1929 of 2020
ORDER:
1. This petition is filed to quash the proceedings against the petitioners/A1 to A3 in Crime No.44 of 2020 on the file of Kothagudem I Town Police Station, Bhadradri-Kothadem District.
2. The 2nd respondent filed a private complaint against petitioners/A1 to A3 alleging that the 1st petitioner in collusion with other petitioners claimed an amount of Rs.11,53,614/- and caused loss to the Singareni Collieries Company Limited. The 1st petitioner was not entitled to claim the said amount, however, when the complainant received information under Right to Information Act, it was found that the amount which was claimed by the 1st petitioner/A1 was remitted back in the year 2017.
3. It is further the case that the amounts were misappropriated in the year, 2016. However, for the reason of remitting back the amount in the year 2017, it will not wipe away the criminality of misappropriation.
2
4. The police, having received complaint, which was forwarded by the I Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, registered the complaint for the offences under 409, 420, 468, 474 r/w 120-B of IPC.
5. Sri Pradyumna Kumar Reddy, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners/accused submits that even according to the complaint, the amounts which were claimed were later remitted back by the 1st petitioner. For the said reason, the question of misappropriation does not arise. He further submits that the defacto complainant/2nd respondent is a mischief monger and indulges in fling several frivolous petitions before the courts. The 2nd respondent filed W.P.No.14850 of 2021 before this Court and this Court by way of order dated 07.07.2021 found that the defacto complainant/2nd respondent was misusing the forum and repeatedly filing the petitions, for which reason, he was asked to pay Rs.50,000/- costs. Aggrieved by the said order, Writ Appeal No.418 of 2021 was filed before the Division Bench, which was dismissed on 07.12.2021 confirming the order of the learned Single 3 Judge observing that the 2nd respondent/defacto complainant is deliberately involved in filing such petitions.
6. He further submits that the 1st petitioner is upright officer and discharging his duties in the capacity of Chairman since January, 2015 and was given extension for his services. In support of his contentions, he relied upon the judgments; i) Chandran Ratnaswami v. K.C.Palaniswamy [(2013) 6 Supreme Court Cases 740]; ii) State of West Bengal and others v. Swapan Kumar Guha [(1982) 1 Supreme Court Cases 561]; iii) R.Kalyani v. Janak C.Mehta [(2009) 1 Supreme Court Cases 516].
7. It is the case wherein the amounts were claimed and subsequently remitted back. However, though, according to the complaint, there was temporary misappropriation, the said facts whether there was any intention on the part of the petitioners/A1 to A3 to cause any wrongful loss to the Singareni Collieries Company Limited is a matter for investigation. Unless the claims for the amounts, its basis and the documents filed for the claims are analyzed, the complicity or otherwise cannot be determined. 4
8. Keeping in view the back ground of the defacto complainant and also that the amounts were remitted back, the concerned Police Officer shall conclude the investigation as expeditiously as possible without arresting these petitioners.
9. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is disposed off.
__________________ K.SURENDER, J Date: 02.11.2022 kvs 5 HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER CRIMINAL PETITION No.1929 of 2020 Date: 02.11.2022.
kvs 6