Nandlal Shivlal Yadav And 3 Others vs The State Of Telangana And Another
2021 Latest Caselaw 1472 Tel

                    HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.LAKSHMAN

              CRL.P.Nos.4080 of 2017, 5097,5155 and 6641 of 2020

COMMON ORDER:

         Crl.P.No.4080 of 2017 is filed by A1, A2, A4, and A8 in

C.C.No.17 of 2016 seeking to quash the proceedings in the said CC.

         2. Crl.P.No.5097 of 2020is filed by A1, A2, A5, A6, A7, A37, 41

and 43 in C.C.No.27 of 2017 seeking to quash the proceedings in the said

C.C.

         3. Crl.P.No.5155 of 2020 is filed by A1 to and A4 in C.C.No.26 of

2020 seeking to quash the proceedings in the said C.C.

         4. Crl.P.No.6641 of 2020 is filed by A13 and A44 in C.C.No.27 of

2017 seeking to quash the proceedings in the said C.C.

         5. In the above said three calendar cases i.e., C.C.No.17 of 2016,

C.C.No.27 of 2017 and C.C.No.26 of 2020, the de facto complainants

therein have filed the complaints under Section 200 of Cr.P.C before the

Courts below and the same were referred to ACB for the purpose of

investigation under Section 156 (3) of Cr.P.C. On such reference, the

ACB officials have registered crimes and after completion of

investigation, they have laid the charge sheets against the petitioners

herein and other accused in the above said three calendar cases.

         6. Since the issues raised therein, the allegations made against the

petitioners-accused and disputes are also common, the said four criminal

petitions are heard together and decided by way of the present common

order.
                                                                               KL,J
                                      2               Crl.P. No.4080 of 2017&batch



      7. As stated above, the de facto complainants in the above said

three Calendar Cases have filed complaints under Section 200 of Cr.P.C.

before the Court below and the same were referred to ACB officials

under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. The ACB officials have registered FIRs in

the above said three calendar cases and after completion of investigation,

filed charge sheets. In C.C.No.27 of 2017, there are 15 allegations

against the accused therein.

      8. The said allegations, in brief, are as follows:

         Hyderabad Cricket Association (for short 'HCA') is a member

of Board of Control for Cricket in India (for short 'BCCI') and it is a

recognized association for promotion of Cricket within the State of A.P.

under the overall control of BCCI. HCA has received huge amount of

funds from BCCI and it has also received the land at Uppal from the

Government of A.P. for construction of Rajiv Gandhi International

Cricket Stadium. The funds received by H.C.A from BCCI and others

are exclusively meant for promotion and betterment of Cricket and

cannot be misappropriated or used for the pecuniary advantage of its

office bearers. The accused are office bearers of HCA. The de facto

complainant is a Secretary of 'Sagar Cricket Club', Hyderabad and is

also a member of HCA. The accused, being the managing committee

members of HCA, mismanaged the activities in HCA. The Government

has given Ac.23.28 guntas of land in favour of H.C.A for the purpose of

construction of Rajiv Gandhi International Cricket Stadium, at Uppal,

Hyderabad, under a registered lease deed for a period of 30 years @
                                                                              KL,J
                                     3               Crl.P. No.4080 of 2017&batch



Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh only) per annum towards rent. A16 is

the successful bidder to construct the said Stadium and it has entered into

an agreement with H.C.A. The construction cost was estimated at Rs.31

crores and during the tenders, A16 quoted final amount of

Rs.31,20,16,069/- and 3% with less discount and final amount quoted at

Rs.30,26,55,587/-, which includes firefighting system and fire pump

house. From time to time, the said amount of construction was enhanced

to Rs.108 crores. A16 has not provided the fire fighting system.A16 has

committed several irregularities and allowed to enhance the cost of

construction by taking huge amounts and bribes and caused heavy loss to

the Society.

      9.   There are specific allegations that the committee has paid

Rs.910/- for each bucket chair, whereas in the open market the cost is

Rs.450/-. The committee has paid an amount of Rs.2,07,00,000/- excess

by taking huge kickbacks from the supplier. The HCA had purchased

generators from A19 by paying Rs.1,75,00,000/-. A17 was appointed by

HCA and he never performed his duties. He is also one of instruments to

enhance the construction cost in the said stadium. There is also

misappropriation of funds with regard to construction of stadium by

HCA and the same was given to A20. In spite of orders of the Collector,

R.R.District, dated 15.10.2007, A1 to A14 have committed irregularities

in selling the tickets. A1 to A14 have not paid sales tax to Commercial

Tax Department as such they raided the office of HCA and imposed the

fine of Rs.44,00,000/- on HCA. The said fact would show that A1 to A14

had not performed their duties diligently.
                                                                                KL,J
                                       4               Crl.P. No.4080 of 2017&batch



      10. A1 to A14 without calling for tenders have invested more than

an amount of Rs.83,00,000/- on three play grounds i.e., Qutubullapur,

Mathrusri    Engineering     College       and   Osmania    University        and

misappropriated the said amount. There is misappropriation of amount

with regard to erection of flood lights in Rajiv Gandhi International

Cricket Stadium and a unilateral decision has been taken to purchase land

at Nandigama Village, Patancheruvu Mandal, Medak District.

      11. Thus, there are 15 allegations made against the accused in

C.C.No.27 of 2017 by the de facto complainant therein. There are similar

allegations in the above said three other calendar cases by the de facto

complainants therein.

      12. It is relevant to note that the Investigating Officer has laid

charge sheet basing on the statements of the witnesses recorded under

Section 161 Cr.P.C and also considering the documentary evidence

collected during the course of investigation. The details of allegations,

statements   recorded,     documentary      evidence   collected      etc.,    are

specifically mentioned in the charge sheet. The Investigating Officer

referring to the same, has specifically mentioned that as per the

investigation some of the allegations are not substantiated. However, the

Investigating Officer has categorically stated that the accused in the

above said Crl.P.Nos.5097 of 2020 and 6641 of 2020 have committed the

offences. In the other three calendar cases also, there were similar

references made by the investigating officers.
                                                                                   KL,J
                                         5                Crl.P. No.4080 of 2017&batch



          CONTENTIONS OF THE PETITIONERS:

          13. Sri C.Nageswara Rao, learned Senior Counsel, representing

    Ms. K.Aruna, learned counsel for the petitioners in Crl.P.No.6641 of

2020, advanced lead arguments in the entire batch, as follows:

           The accused in all the calendar cases being the Managing

Committee Members of HCA never discharged their functions as public

servants. Therefore, the provisions of Prevention of Corruption Act,

1988, (for short 'PC Act') does not attract against them. HCA never

received any aid or grant from the Government and therefore, it is not a

public authority and the accused are not the public servants. The offences

alleged against the accused under the provisions of the PC Act are not

maintainable. The ingredients of the charge sheet lacks the offences

alleged against the petitioners herein. Learned Senior Counsel relied on

the principles laid down in several judgments which will be referred

below at relevant point of time.

          14.      Sri     K.S.Murthy,       learned   counsel,      representing

Sri V.Ramachander Goud, learned Senior Counsel, appearing for the

petitioners in Crl.P.No.4080 of 2017, 5097 of 2020 and 5155 of 2020,

while adopting the submissions made by learned Senior Counsel, would

supplement as follows:

           Placing reliance on the principle laid down by the Hon'ble Apex

Court in Himachal Pradesh Cricket Association vs. State of H.P.1,

learned counsel would submit that HCA is not a State as defined under

1
    2018 SCC Online 2419
                                                                                KL,J
                                         6             Crl.P. No.4080 of 2017&batch



Article 12 of the Constitution of India and therefore, the provisions of PC

Act are not attracted.      The Investigating Officer without considering

several aspects and also without considering the order dated 15.7.2015 in

W.P.(c) No.11822 of 2013 and the common order dated 15.11.2011 in

Crl.P.No.3461 of 2011 and batch dated 15.11.2011, wherein it was

directed if the investigation reveals that the authorities concerned

financially assisted the association, necessarily they should be termed as

public servants. The Investigating Agency is at liberty to decide the issue

on the basis of the outcome of the investigation. He would further

submit that A4 i.e., K.John Manoj in C.C.No.26 of 2020 and A43 i.e.,

Surendra Kumar Agarwal in C.C.No.27 of 2017 were inducted into

Managing     Committee of HCA much later to the period for which the

investigation was ordered to be done and the allegations were made.

Therefore,     they   are      nothing       to   do   with     the      alleged

misappropriation and the offences levelled against them are not made

out.

        15. With the said submissions, leaned Senior Counsel appearing

for the petitioners in the above Criminal Petitions sought to quash the

proceedings in C.C.No.17 of 2016, C.C.No.27 of 2017 and C.C.No.26 of

2020.

        16. Sri V.RaviKiran Rao, learned Senior Counsel, representing

TS ACB, would submit that the Government has given Ac.23.27 guntas

(1,14,587 sq.yards) of land in Uppal, Hyderabad, which is a prime place,

on lease, to HCA for the purpose of construction of Cricket Stadium at
                                                                             KL,J
                                    7               Crl.P. No.4080 of 2017&batch



International Standards on a nominal rent of Rs.1,00,000/- per annum. A

registered lease deed bearing document No.12021/2004/SRO, Uppal,

dated 06.12.2004 was entered between HCA and Government of A.P for

a period of 25 years. The Government has extended funds from 1961 to

1983 and the details of the same were specifically mentioned in the

counter filed by the respondents. On receipt of complaints from the Court

below, the ACB officials have registered the complaints against the

accused for the aforesaid offences and on completion of investigation,

they have laid charge sheets against the accused. While laying the charge

sheets, the Investigating Officer has considered the statements of

witnesses recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C and also the documentary

evidence collected by it.

17. By referring to the contents of the charge sheet, learned Senior

Counsel would further submit that the Investigating Officer dropped

certain charges against the accused, on consideration of the statements of

the witnesses recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and also documentary

evidence collected during the course of investigation on the ground that

the said allegations are not substantiated. The same would show the

unbiased and impartial investigation conducted by the Investigating

Officer. He would further submit that there are several triable issues,

which have to be decided during the course of full-fledged trial. The

accused instead of facing full-fledged trial, and proving innocence,

approached this Court by way of filing the present criminal petitions

under Section 482 Cr.P.C seeking to quash the very criminal proceedings

itself. He has also referred certain provisions of PC Act, IPC and the KL,J

principles laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court and this Court. The

same would be referred and considered below at the relevant point of

time.

18. With the above said submissions, learned Senior Counsel

sought to dismiss all the four Criminal Petitions.

19. The above stated facts and material also would reveal that the

petitioners/accused in the above said criminal petitions have filed

Crl.P.No.3461 of 2011 and batch to quash the proceedings in FIR

No.13/ACB-CIU-HYD/2011 and FIR No.17/ACB-CIU-HYD/2011 of

P.S. CIU, ACB, Hyderabad respectively. They have also raised several

grounds including the grounds that HCA has not received any funds or

aid from the Government. Therefore, it is not a State as defined under

Article 12 of the Constitution of India. They are not the public servants

and they never discharged any public duty. Therefore, the offences under

the provisions of PC Act are not attracted to the accused therein. This

Court, on consideration of the said allegations, dismissed the said

Criminal Petitions by holding that the Investigation may go on, if the

investigation reveals that the authorities concerned financially assisted

the association, necessarily they should be termed as public servants.

Liberty was granted to the Investigating Agency to decide the issue on

the basis of outcome of investigation with regard to the contention of the

petitioners that they are not public servants and they never discharged the

duties of a public servant.

KL,J

20. Pursuant to the said common order, the Investigating Officer

has conducted investigation and laid charge sheet against the accused in

the above said four criminal petitions for the above said offences. In the

Charge sheet itself, it is specifically mentioned that HCA has received

grants to a tune of Rs.1,31,300/- from A.P. Sports Council from the

years 1962-63 to 1979-80 and 1981. The details of the said grant is

specifically mentioned in the charge sheet. Referring to the principle laid

down by the Kerala High Court in Karthikeya Varma alias Kartik

Varma vs. The Union of India and others2, the Investigating Officer has

categorically mentioned that Kerala Cricket Association was recognized

as one of the Sports Association in Kerala by the State Government along

with other Associations. They are not under full supervision and control

of the Kerala State Sports Association and though, the grants were

provided upto 2006, it was received only 2007 and that the amount

received earlier was remitted back to the Cricket Association in January

2009. Therefore, it was held that provisions of P.C Act is attracted to an

office bearer or a member, employee having received any financial

assistance from the State Government or Local or public authority.

21. A perusal of judgment in Karthikeya Varma (supra), the

Kerala High Court by referring activities of Kerala Cricket Association,

grants received by it, and also purpose for which, the same were received

held that the complainant has no case that the stadium is being

constructed by the Kerala Cricket Association in discharge of legal

2015 CRI.L.J.4815.

KL,J

obligations under any positive law enacted by the State or by the

executive direction of the Government. In that view of the matter,

construction of stadium can only be considered as a State function and

not in discharge of any public duty.

22. Considering the same and also relying on the law laid down by

the Hon'ble Apex Court in several judgments, Kerala High Court held

that Kerala Cricket Association is not a public office. The Kerala Cricket

Association is not under a legal obligation under any statute law or

governmental decision to construct stadium. Thus, no complaint would

be maintainable against the Kerala Cricket Association for the purchase

of land for construction of the stadium.

23. In Himachal Pradesh Cricket Association(supra), the

Hon'ble Apex Court referring to the allegations levelled held that the

offences under the provisions of PC Act would not attract in the said

case.

24. In Nanjappa vs. State of Karnataka (Criminal Appeal

No.1867 of 2012, dated 24.7.2015 ), the Apex Court had an occasion to

deal with the provisions of PC Act and also the sanction for the purpose

of prosecution and quashed the proceedings therein.

25. In Station House Officer/CBI/ACB/Bangalore vs.

B.A.Srinivasan and another3, the Three Judges Bench of Apex Court

categorically held that after considering the facts of the case therein

(2020) 2 SCC 153 KL,J

summarized the principle with regard to intricately connected with

discharge of official functions of accused.

26. In Zee Tele Films Limited vs. Union of India4 , the Hon'ble

Apex Court held that Cricket Board discharges a public function. It has

its duties towards the public. The public at large will look forward to the

Board for selection of the best team to represent the country. It must

manage its housekeeping in such a manner so as to fulfil the hopes and

aspirations of millions. It has, thus, a duty to act fairly. It cannot act

arbitrarily, whimsically or capriciously. Public interest is, thus, involved

in the activities of the Board. It is, thus, a State.

27. In another case reported in Board of Control for Cricket in

India vs. Cricket Association of Bihar and others5 , the Apex Court held

that BCCI is a very important institution that discharges important public

functions. Demands of institutional integrity are, therefore, heavy and

need to be met suitably in larger public interest. Individuals are birds of

passage while institutions are forever. The expectations of the millions of

cricket lovers in particular and public at large in general, have lowered

considerably the threshold of tolerance for any mischief, wrongdoing or

corrupt practices which sought to be weeded out of the system. Conflict

of interest is one area which appears to have led to the current confusion

and serious misgivings in the public mind as to the manner in which

BCCI is managing its affairs.

2005 4 SCC 649

2015 3 SCC 251 KL,J

28. In Central Bureau of Investigation, Bank Securities and

Fraud Cell vs. Ramesh Gelli and others6, the Hon'ble Apex Court held

that the enactment of the PC Act with the clear intent to widen the

definition of "public servant" cannot be allowed to have the opposite

effect by expressing judicial helplessness to rectify or fill up what is a

clear omission in Section 46-A of the BR Act. The omission to continue

to extend the deeming provisions in Section 46-A of the BR Act to the

offences under Sections 7 to 12 of the PC Act must be understood to be

clearly unintended and hence capable of admitting a judicial exercise to

fill up the same. The unequivocal legislative intent to widen the

definition of "public servant" by enacting the PC Act cannot be allowed

to be defeated by interpreting and understanding the omission in Section

46-A of the BR Act to be incapable of being filled up by the Court.

29. In State of Maharashtra vs. BrijlalSadsukhModani7, the

Hon'ble Apex Court held that the High Court has really been swayed by

the concept of Article 12 of the Constitution, the provisions contained in

the 1949 Act and in a mercurial manner taking note of the fact that the

multi-State is not controlled or aided by the Government has arrived at

the conclusion. In our considered opinion, even any grant or any aid at

the time of establishment of the society or in any construction or in any

structural concept or any aspect would be an aid. We are inclined to think

so as the term "aid" has not been defined. A sprinkle of aid to the society

will also bring an employee within the definition of "public servant".

(2016) 3 SCC 788

(2016) 4 SCC 417 KL,J

30. The Division of the High Court of Hyderabad and for the State

of Telangana and the State of Andhra Pradesh in the case of M.Govind

Reddy vs. Hyderabad Cricket Association and others8, held that just like

the BCCI, HCA is also a registered society administering cricket in

Hyderabad. It holds complete sway over cricket in the State of

Telangana, and has exclusive authority to select the Hyderabad cricket

team. It controls the Rajiv Gandhi Cricket Stadium at Uppal. As the

functions discharged by HCA are public functions, it is amenable to the

jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

31. In Himachal Pradesh Cricket Association (supra) referring to

the facts of the case and the allegations which have specifically

mentioned therein, the Apex Court held that the allegations of criminal

prosecution or criminal acts are lacking in the said cases.

32. By referring to the proceedings issued by it, and also

G.O.Ms.No.1384, dated 19.11.2010, lease deed, learned Senior Counsel

representing TS ACB would submit that there is an aid from the

Government to HCA including providing of land on lease and grants

from 1963-1981. Therefore, it is a State as defined under Article 12 of

the Constitution of India. Therefore, the provisions of PC Act are

applicable. The accused, being Managing Committee Members of the

said Association, discharged public duties and therefore, they are public

servants in the eye of law.

2017(3) ALT 506 KL,J

33. As stated above, the Investigating Officer referring to the

statements of the witnesses recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C and also

referring to the documentary evidence collected during the course of

investigation categorically mentioned in the charge sheet that some of the

allegations are not substantiated and some of the allegations are

substantiated. The reasons were also specifically mentioned therein.

Thus, the petitioners cannot contend that the Investigating Officers have

not considered the relevant material and not conducted the investigation

in a fair and transparent manner. The alleged omissions and

contradictions in the statements of the witnesses cannot be considered in

a petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. as held by the Hon'ble Apex

Court in catena of decisions. The petitioners have to face trial and take

the said defences during trial and prove their innocence.

34. As stated above, for the purpose of construction of Stadium,

the Government has granted Ac.23.27 guntas (1,14,587 sq.yards) of land

in favour of HCA, on lease, for a period of 25 years, on the nominal rent

of Rs.1,00,000/- per annum and also grants were received by HCA.

There are serious allegations of misappropriation of funds at every stage

by HCA. The said facts were specifically referred in the discussion

supra.

35. Thus, as there are triable issues, the petitioners have to face

trial and prove their innocence. Instead of doing so, the petitioners have

filed the present criminal petitions to quash the proceedings in the four

calendar cases.

KL,J

36. In view of the above fact that HCA has obtained land to an

extent of Ac.23.27 guntas on lease on a nominal rent of Rs.1,00,000/- per

annum for a period of 25 years vide registered lease deed No.12021/

2004/SRO, Uppal dated 06.12.2004 wherein it is indicated that HCA was

financially assisted by the Government for its development and to

function in a transparent manner. As held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in

Zee Tele Films Limited (supra), in every discharge of duty, there is an

element of sovereign functions, State functions and public functions,

therefore they may be treated as public servants. HCA has received grant

of aid from the Government and therefore, prima facie, the

petitioners/accused and the office bearers of HCA are public servants and

they have discharged their duties of public servants. Therefore, there are

several triable issues to be decided by the trial Court. The petitioners

have to face trial, take the said defences and prove their innocence.

Instead of doing so, the petitioners have filed the present criminal

petitions seeking to quash the proceedings in the above said four calendar

cases.

37. It is relevant to refer Section 2 (c) (xii) of the P.C.Act, which is

reproduced hereinunder:

"any person who is an office-bearer or an employee of educational, scientific, social, cultural or other institution, in whatever manner established, receiving or having received any financial assistance from the Central Government or any State Government, or local or other public authority".

KL,J

38. As discussed supra, the HCA has received aid from the

Government and huge land in a prime locality on a nominal rent.

39. The facts of the case in Karthikeya Varma (supra) are

different from the facts of the present case and in view of the above

discussion, the said principle is not applicable to the facts of the present

case. Likewise, in Nanjappa (supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court while

dealing with conviction judgment by the trial Court, reversed by High

Court, acquitted the accused on the ground of absence of valid

prosecution under the provisions of P.C.Act and as it is a triable issue,

the petitioners have to take the defences during trial. The same cannot be

considered in a petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. therefore, the

petitioners cannot take shelter under the principle laid down by the Apex

Court in Nanjappa (supra).

40. In Himachal Pradesh Cricket Association (supra), the

allegations in the charge sheet against the accused therein are with regard

to demolition of residential hostel by the officials of H.P. Cricket

Association and the Hon'ble Apex Court, on considering the allegations

therein, came to a conclusion that there is no criminal element.

Accordingly, with the said findings, the Apex Court was pleased to quash

the First Information Report, whereas, in the present case, prima facie,

there are serious allegations against all the accused. Therefore, the said

principle is not applicable to the facts of the present case. The

misappropriation committed by each of the accused and the role played

by them is also specifically mentioned in the charge sheet. With regard to KL,J

the contentions of Sri K.S.Murthy, learned senior counsel that A.4 i.e.

K.John Manoj in C.C.No.26 of 2020 and A.43 i.e. Surendra Kumar

Agarwal in C.C.No.27 of 2017 were inducted into Managing Committee

of HCA much later to the period for which investigation was ordered to

be done. It is the specific contention of the ACB in the charge sheet as

well as in counter that A.4-K.John Manoj, served as Executive

Committee Member of HCA from the year 2003-04 to 2009-10 as

honorary Secretary, HCA in the year 2014. He was active Member in the

Association during the construction of Stadium and therefore, committed

offences. Similar allegations are there against A.43 i.e. Surendra kumar

Agarwal. Therefore, the said contention of Sri K.S.Murthy, learned

Senior counsel is not sustainable. However, it is a triable issue which can

be looked into by the trial Court and the same cannot be considered in a

petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.

41. Prima facie, there are serious allegations against the petitioners

herein. However, whether the HCA has received any aid or financial

assistance, whether the office bearers of HCA have discharged public

duty and whether they are the public servants as defined under the

provisions of the P.C. Act is a question of fact and triable issues. The

same will be decided during the course of trial. The petitioners have to

face trial and prove their innocence by leading evidence. Thus, the said

issue cannot be decided in the present proceedings.

KL,J

42. In Kamal Shivaji Pokarnekar vs. The State of Maharashtra9 ,

wherein the Apex Court has categorically held that quashing criminal

proceedings was called for only in a case where complaint did not

disclose any offence, or was frivolous, vexatious, or oppressive. If

allegations set out in complaint did not constitute offence of which

cognizance had been taken by Magistrate, it was open to High Court to

quash the same. It was not necessary that, a meticulous analysis of case

should be done before trial to find out whether case would end in

conviction or acquittal. If it appeared on a reading of complaint and

consideration of allegations therein, in light of the statement made on

oath that the ingredients of the offence are disclosed, there would be no

justification for High Court to interfere. The defences that might be

available, or facts/aspects which when established during trial, might lead

to acquittal, were not grounds for quashing complaint at threshold. At

that stage, only question relevant was whether averments in complaint

spell out ingredients of a criminal offence or not. The Court has to

consider whether complaint discloses that prima facie, offences that were

alleged against Respondents. Correctness or otherwise of said allegations

had to be decided only in trial. At initial stage of issuance of process, it

was not open to Courts to stifle proceedings by entering into merits of the

contentions made on behalf of Accused. Criminal complaints could not

be quashed only on ground that, allegations made therein appear to be of

a civil nature. If ingredients of offence alleged against Accused were

AIR 2019 SC 847 KL,J

prima facie made out in complaint, criminal proceeding shall not be

interdicted.

43. The Apex Court in Skoda Auto Volkswagen India Private

Limited v. The State of Uttar Pradesh10, and also by referring various

other judgments, held that the High Court has to quash the proceedings in

criminal cases in rarest of rare cases with great caution and with great

circumspection.

44. In view of the aforesaid law laid down by the Apex Court and

also in view of the discussion supra, there are several triable issues in all

the four criminal petitions. The petitioners/accused have to face trial and

prove their innocence. Thus, this Court is not inclined to quash the

proceedings in the above said four calendar cases by invoking inherent

powers under Section 484 Cr.P.C. The petitioners have also failed to

make out any ground to quash the proceedings in the said calendar cases.

In view of the same, all the four criminal petitions are liable to be

dismissed.

45. Accordingly, all the Criminal Petitions are dismissed.

As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, in these Criminal Petitions, shall stand closed.

__________________________ JUSTICE K.LAKSHMAN Date: 01.06.2021 Rkk

Manu/SC/0898/2020