Telangana High Court
Smt.Chinthakuntla Sravani vs The Public Prosecutor, on 24 October, 2024
THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE K. SUJANA
CRIMINAL PETITION No.9673 of 2023
ORDER:
This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of Code
of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short 'Cr.P.C.') to quash the
proceedings against the petitioner/accused No.25 in
C.C.No.1191 of 2022 on the file of the learned Special Judicial
Magistrate of the First Class, (Prohibiton & Excise Offences),
Nalgonda, registered for the offences punishable under
Sections 120 (b), 406, 409, 420, 477(A), 417, 418, 201, 436,
380 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short
'IPC').
2. The brief facts of the case are that respondent
No.2/de facto complainant lodged a complaint against the
petitioner and other accused stating that on 02.02.2015,
General Audit Department employees audited the Nalgonda
Municipality records for the year 2012-13. They found that
one Kiran, bill collector, misappropriated Rs.4,68,174/- (water
bills, building permissions, etc.), R. Aruna, cashier,
misappropriated Rs.10,39,147/-. It is further stated that
SKS,J
both repaid the amounts in months of February and March,
2015 and were suspended. Further, a subsequent Special
Audit was conducted on 27.04.2015 for financial years 2011-
12 and 2014-15, and it revealed that D. Kiran Kumar, bill
collector, failed to credit Rs.87,00,000/- into the municipality
account and he did not submit 366 receipt books to the audit
department, other bill collectors also failed to submit receipt
books. The audit department suspects theft of receipt books
and money value registers from the accounts section. Basing
on the said complaint, the Police registered a case in Crime
No.118 of 2015 for the offences punishable under Sections
120 (b), 406, 409, 420, 477(A), 417, 418, 201, 436, 380 read
with 34 of IPC and after completion of investigation, they filed
charge sheet, vide C.C.No.1191 of 2022, before the learned
Special Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, (Prohibiton &
Excise Offences), Nalgonda.
3. Heard Sri M.V.S. Sai Kumar, learned counsel appearing
on behalf of the petitioner as well as Sri D. Arun Kumar,
learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of
respondent No.1-State and Sri Singh Takur Anoop, learned
counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.2.
SKS,J
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the
complaints filed by respondent No.2 lack specific allegations
against the petitioner beyond mentioning her name,
designation, and work period and that this raises concerns
about the validity of the complaints and the connection of the
petitioner to the alleged offenses. He further submitted that
according to Section 197 of Cr.P.C., prosecution of
Government Servants requires prior sanction from the
competent authority, which is absent in this case and that
this Section mandates that no court shall take cognizance of
offenses allegedly committed by public servants in the
discharge of official duties without state government sanction.
5. Learned counsel contended that the Telangana
Municipalities Act, 2019, supports this stance. Section 375
states that when officials like the Chairperson, Commissioner,
or Municipal Health Officer are accused of offenses committed
during duty, no court shall take cognizance without prior
government sanction. He further contended that the audit
report was absent from the council, as required by Scheduled-
II of Rule 60 of the Municipalities Act. Therefore, the
allegations leveled against the petitioner are vague and
SKS,J
baseless and prayed the Court to quash the proceedings
against her.
6. Per contra, learned Additional Public Prosecutor
opposed the submissions made by the learned counsel for the
petitioner stating that there are specific allegations against the
petitioner, which requires trial and prayed the Court to
dismiss the criminal petition.
7. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.2
filed counter affidavit denying the averments made by the
learned counsel for the petitioner stating that no prior
permission is required or mandatory to prosecute the
Government Servant if a Government Servant misuses or act
beyond the powers delegated to the Government servant and
entered into a criminal conspiracy. Therefore, he prayed the
Court to dismiss the criminal petition.
8. In support of his submissions, learned counsel relied
upon the Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
SKS,J
Shadakshari v. State of Karnataka and Anr 1 , wherein in
paragraph No.25, it is held as under:
"25. The question whether
respondent No.2 was involved in
fabricating official documents by
misusing his official position as a public
servant is a matter of trial. Certainly, a
view can be taken that manufacturing of
such documents or fabrication of records
cannot be a part of the official duty of a
public servant. If that be the position,
the High Court was not justified in
quashing the complaint as well as the
charge sheet in its entirety, moreso,
when there are two other accused
persons besides respondent No.2. There
is another aspect of the matter.
Respondent No.2 had unsuccessfully
challenged the complaint in an earlier
proceeding under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.
Though liberty was granted by the High
Court to respondent No.2 to challenge
any adverse report if filed subsequent to
the lodging of the complaint, instead of
confining the challenge to the charge-
sheet, respondent No.2 also assailed the
complainant as well which he could not
have done."
AIR 2024 SUPREME COURT 590
SKS,J
9. In the light of the submissions made by both the
learned counsel and on perusal of the material available on
record, to determine if sanction is required to prosecute the
petitioner for misappropriation of funds from property tax, we
need to consider Section 197 of Cr.P.C. This section states
that the prosecution of a public servant requires prior
sanction from the government if the alleged offense was
committed while acting or purporting to act in the discharge
of official duty. However, in cases of misappropriation of
public funds or fabrication of records, the courts have held
that these actions are not considered as part of official duty of
public servant. The official capacity merely provides the
opportunity to commit such offenses. Further, the purpose of
sanction is to protect public servants from undue harassment
by initiation of frivolous criminal proceedings.
10. In the present case, since the petitioner is alleged to
have committed misappropriation of funds, which is not
considered part of their official duties, the requirement for
prior sanction may not apply. However, the decision of this
court will ultimately depend on the specific circumstances
and interpretation of Section 197 of the Cr.P.C.
SKS,J
11. Under these circumstances, this Court is of the
considered view that the question whether the petitioner was
involved in misappropriating the funds of public property by
misusing her official position as a public servant is the matter
of trial. Therefore, this Court does not find any merit in the
criminal petition to quash the proceedings against the
petitioner and the same is liable to be dismissed.
12. Accordingly, this Criminal Petition is dismissed.
Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall stand
closed.
_______________
K. SUJANA, J
Date:24.10.2024
PT
