Telangana High Court
N. Sridhar And 2 Others vs The State Of Telangana And Another on 2 November, 2022
Bench: K.Surender
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.
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
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.
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
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
CRIMINAL PETITION No.1929 of 2020
Date: 02.11.2022.
kvs
