Telangana High Court
Dr.N.Kiranmayee vs State Of Ap., Another on 28 October, 2021
Bench: G.Radha Rani
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
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
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
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
2020 SCC (7) Vol. 4 (695)
Dr.GRR,J
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
