Smt P Harini vs The State Of Telangana
2024 Latest Caselaw 4234 Tel

Citation : 2024 Latest Caselaw 4234 Tel
Judgement Date : 29 October, 2024

Telangana High Court

Smt P Harini vs The State Of Telangana on 29 October, 2024

          THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE K. SUJANA


               CRIMINAL PETITION No.1298 of 2024


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 in C.C.No.7589 of

2021 on the file of the learned IV Additional Chief

Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, registered for the

offences punishable under Sections 409 and 420 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

stating that the petitioner who is the Deputy Registrar of

Co-operative Societies, served as Liquidator for Aryan

Cooperative Urban Bank Limited from 02.04.2014, to

12.03.2015. Upon submitting the final report and special

report for the year 2014-15, the auditor uncovered

irregularities attributed to the petitioner. It is further stated

that the Auditor found irregularities against the petitioner in

the special report. The Divisional Co-operative Officer

SKS,J

conducted an independent inquiry under Section 60 of the

Telangana Co-operative Societies Act, 1964 (for short 'the

Act'), and found the petitioner guilty of irregularities during

her tenure and issued surcharge orders. Basing on the said

complaint, the Police registered a case in Crime No.38 of 2019

for the offences punishable under Sections 409 and 420 of IPC

and after completion of investigation, they filed charge sheet,

vide C.C.No.7589 of 2021, before the learned IV Additional

Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad. Aggrieved thereby,

this criminal petition is filed.

3. Heard Sri N. Bujanga Rao, 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. Though notice served upon

respondent No.2, none appeared on her behalf.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the

petitioner was appointed as liquidator of Aryan Co-operative

Urban Bank, Nallakunta Branch, and is facing allegations of

illegal debit of Rs.22,000/- from bank funds for conveyance

charges and wrongful loss to the bank due to expenditures

SKS,J

incurred towards two cooperative societies. Learned counsel

for the petitioner further submitted that the petitioner has

acted within her powers and had taken steps for

reimbursement and the same was also received from the

respective societies. He contended that the petitioner

obtained oral approval from the superior Officer before

allowing One Time Settlement (OTS) to borrower Bapu Reddy.

The superior Officer gave approval for the OTS, indicating that

no action be taken against the borrower for recovery of the

total loan amount.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that as the

petitioner is the public servant/Officer of cooperative

Department, she is not entrusted with organization or

affairs/management of the society, as such, making surcharge

proceedings under Section 60 of the Act is inapplicable. He

further submitted that this Court granted interim suspension

of the surcharge order dated 29.04.2022 in I.A.No.2 of 2022 in

W.P.No.2288 of 2022. Therefore, the allegations leveled

against the petitioner are vague and baseless and the same do

not constitute the offence as alleged by respondent No.2.

SKS,J

Hence, he prayed the Court to quash the proceedings that are

initiated against the petitioner.

6. Per contra, learned Additional Public Prosecutor opposed

the submissions made by the learned counsel for the

petitioner stating that the allegations leveled against the

petitioner, requires trial. Hence, he prayed the Court to

dismiss the criminal petition.

7. At this stage, it is imperative to note that to quash the

proceedings under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., the Court has to

see whether the averments in the complaint would prima facie

show that the offence as alleged by the Police constitutes.

Further, while dealing with the petition filed under Section

482 of Cr.P.C., the Court has to take into consideration the

averments made in the complaint and the statements of the

witnesses and if the averments made therein do not constitute

any offence, as alleged against the accused persons, then the

proceedings against the accused are liable to be quashed.

SKS,J

8. Furthermore, as per the judgment of the Hon'ble

Supreme Court in State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Surendra

Kori 1, wherein in paragraph No.14, reads as under:

"The High Court in exercise of its powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. does not function as a Court of appeal or revision. This Court has, in several judgments, held that the inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C., though wide, has to be used sparingly, carefully and with caution. The High Court, under Section 482 Cr.P.C., should normally refrain from giving a prima facie decision in a case where the entire facts are incomplete and hazy, more so when the evidence has not been collected and produced before the Court and the issues involved, whether factual or legal, are of wide magnitude and cannot be seen in their true perspective without sufficient material."

9. In the light of the submissions made by both the

learned counsel and on perusal of the material available on

record, the main allegation against the petitioner is that

despite the total outstanding amount being Rs.39,56,248/-,

she collected Rs.14,00,000/- from borrower B. Bapu Reddy

and closed the loan account in terms of OTS. It is specifically

(2012) 10 Supreme Court Cases 155

SKS,J

contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that she

obtained oral approval from her superior Officer before

allowing the OTS. That apart, there is discrepancy in the date

of collecting amount i.e., though the date of collection was