Telangana High Court
Indur Jagadeesh vs The State Of Telangana on 26 November, 2025
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE J.SREENIVAS RAO
CRIMINAL PETITION No.1123 of 2023
ORDER:
This Criminal Petition has been filed under Section
482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short,
'Cr.P.C.') by the petitioner/accused seeking to quash the
proceedings in FIR No.07/RCA-ACB-NZB/2022 of ACB
Police Station, Nizamabad Range, registered for the
offence under Section 13(1)(b) r/w 13(2) of the Prevention
of Corruption Act, 1988 (as amended in 2018) (hereinafter
referred to as, 'the Act').
2. Brief facts of the case:
2.1 The case of the prosecution is that, consequent to
the case registered against the petitioner vide Crime No.
5/RCO/ACB-NZB/2020, for the offences under Sections
7(a), 7(c) and 12 of the Act, and Sections 417 and 120-B
read with 34 of IPC, searches were conducted on
25.11.2020 at the residence of the petitioner and two
other accused and certain other locations, including
Locker No.7 at Axis Bank, Kanteshwar Branch,
Nizamabad, jointly held by the petitioner and his wife,
wherein it is found that the petitioner is in possession of
huge net cash of Rs.34,40,200/- apart from gold and
silver, for which he could not account satisfactorily.
2.2 It is further case of the prosecution that the
petitioner while working as public servant from 2008 to till
date, Accused Officer (AO) has acquired Assets in the
shape of residential house, agriculture lands, gold, car,
bike, bank balances and net cash in locker etc., total
worth of about Rs.87,89,640/- on his name and in the
name of his wife and daughter. The AO's probable income
from all known sources during the above said period is
worked out to about Rs.89,14,047/-. Similarly, the AO's
probable expenditure during the above said period is
worked out to about Rs.33,62,321/-. The likely savings of
AO is thus Rs.55,51,726/-. As against the likely savings
of about Rs.55,51,726/-, the AO was found in possession
of assets valued about Rs.87,89,640/-. Thus, the AO is in
possession of Disproportionate assets to a tune of
Rs.32,37,914/- (89,14,047 - 33,62,321). Hence, the
petitioner has committed an offence punishable under
Section 13(1)(b) r/w 13(2) of the Act.
2.3 In view of the above, a detailed report was submitted
to the Director General, Anti-Corruption Bureau,
Telangana State, Hyderabad, to accord permission to
register a case and to conduct investigation against the
petitioner. Based on the report, the Director, ACB, TS,
Hyderabad accorded permission to register a case under
Section 13(1)(b) r/w 13(2) of the Act against the petitioner
vide proceedings in C.No.75/RCO-NZB/2020-S4, dated
23.11.2022. In view of the above orders and the act
committed by the petitioner, the present case was
registered for the aforesaid offence.
3. Heard Sri D.Prakash Reddy, learned Senior Counsel
representing Smt. Madhavilatha Katasani, learned counsel
for the petitioner and Sri T.Bala Mohan Reddy, learned
Special Public Prosecutor, appearing on behalf of
respondent-State.
4. Submissions of learned Senior Counsel for the
petitioner:
4.1 Learned Senior Counsel submitted that the
petitioner has not committed any offence and he was
falsely implicated in the present case. He further
submitted that initially Crime No.5/RCO-ACB-NAB/2020
was registered against the petitioner for the offences
under Sections 7(a)(c) and 12 of the Act and Sections 417,
120(B) r/w 34 of IPC, on the alleged ground of demand of
bribe and acceptance of the same and the petitioner had
approached this Court and filed Criminal Petition No.9027
of 2021 seeking to quash the proceedings in the above
crime and this Court allowed the said Criminal Petition on
01.08.2022 and the said order has become final. Hence,
lodging another crime with same material for difference
offence against the petitioner is only with an intention to
harass him. The allegations made in the present
complaint and the allegations made in the earlier
complaint are one and same.
4.2 He further submitted that even according to the
allegations made in the present complaint, while the
alleged searches were conducted on 25.11.2020, they
came to a conclusion that the petitioner is in possession
of disproportionate assets to a tune of Rs.32,37,914/- and
basing on the said allegation pertaining to November,
2020, the present crime was registered on 28.11.2022
after lapse of nearly more than two years from the date of
alleged inspection, especially subsequent to quashing of
the earlier crime by this Court on 01.08.2022, by giving
different colour that the petitioner was in possession of
disproportionate assets and the same is not permissible
under law.
4.3 He further submitted that the Deputy
Superintendent of Police, ACB had issued notice on
20.10.2021 directing the petitioner to submit explanation
in respect of possession of gold worth Rs.9,12,800/-,
silver worth Rs.1,020/- and net cash of Rs.34,40,200/-,
total worth Rs.43,54,020/-, which were found in the joint
locker of the petitioner and his wife in the search, which
was conducted on 25.11.2020. Pursuant to the same, the
petitioner submitted detailed explanation on 03.11.2021
and the same was not considered.
4.4 He further submitted that the wife of petitioner is a
Government employee, working as Teacher since 2010
and she is drawing a monthly salary of Rs.39,000/- per
month and her salary was not taken into consideration. If
the salary of the petitioner's wife is taken into
consideration, there will not be any disproportionate
assets.
4.5 He also submitted that the petitioner had received an
amount of Rs.34,40,200/- from his father namely Indur
Nrsimulu towards his part of share from the sale
transaction of his ancestral property i.e. agriculture land
to an extent of Ac.0-39 gts. located at Thandur area vide
Agreement, dated 14.04.2019, executed in favour of
Abdullah Mujahedi. The said document was enclosed
along with the explanation dated 03.11.2021 but the same
was not considered without any reasons.
4.6 He further submitted that merely because of the
non-granting of the sanction by the Government in
lodging the complaint pertaining to the allegations in the
month of November, 2020 about disproportionate assets,
respondent is not entitled to lodge a complaint in the year
2022 with a long delay, especially the order passed by this
Court in Criminal Petition No.9027 of 2021, dated
01.08.2022, has become final. Hence, the continuation of
the proceedings against the petitioner is clear abuse of the
process of law and the same is liable to be quashed.
5. Submissions of learned Special Public Prosecutor for
respondent:
5.1 Per contra, the learned Special Public Prosecutor
submitted that the respondent, after following the due
procedure, considering the explanation submitted by the
petitioner, and examining relevant documents, has rightly
initiated the proceedings and registered the present
complaint. There are specific allegations levelled against
the petitioner that he is in possession of disproportionate
of assets.
5.2 He further submitted that the allegations made in
the earlier Crime No.5/RCO-ACB-NAB/2020 and the
allegations made in the present complaint, are different
and distinct, especially the present crime is pertaining to
disproportionate of assets. The petitioner has not given
satisfactory explanation about possessing of huge amount
of Rs.34,40,200/-, which was seized from bank locker. He
also submitted that the petitioner in his explanation
alleged that the said amount is pertaining to sale proceeds
in respect of the agriculture land of Rs.0-39 guntas, which
was alienated by his father through Agreement of Sale,
dated 14.04.2019, in favour of Abdullah Mujahedi.
However, said agreement is lacking the signature of the
person, who executed it and there are discrepancies.
Hence, the respondent disbelieved the version of the
petitioner as alleged in his reply.
5.3 He further submitted that whether the seized
amount, gold and silver, from the Bank joint locker of the
petitioner and his wife were acquired through his income
or his wife's income or from the sale proceeds arising out
of Agreement of Sale, dated 14.04.2019, or the same was
acquired through other sources, are disputed facts and
the same cannot be adjudicated and decided in the
present petition and the same has to be revealed during
the course of investigation and the petitioner is not
entitled to seek for quashing of proceedings at the stage of
crime.
5.4 He further submitted that the respondent has
already taken decision to file S.L.P. being aggrieved by the
order, dated 01.08.2020, passed by this Court in Criminal
Petition No.9027 of 2021, dated 01.08.2022 and has
sought permission from the Government, which is
pending, especially basing upon the above said order,
dated 01.08.2020, the petitioner is not entitled to seek for
quashing of the proceedings. The allegations made in the
present complaint pertaining to disproportionate of assets
and the ingredients for the offence under Section 13(1)(b)
r/w 13(2) of the Act are attracted against the petitioner.
5.5 In support of his contention, he relied upon the
following judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court;
i) State of Rajasthan v. Surendra Singh Rathore 1;
and
ii) Central Bureau of Investigation and others v.
Thommandru Hannah Vijayalakshmi and
others.
Analysis:
6. Having considered the rival submissions made
by the respective parties and after perusal of the material
available on record, it reveals that the petitioner is a
Government employee and while he was discharging his
duties as Inspector of Police, Kamareddy Town police
Station, the respondent conducted a raid against him, and
Crime No.5/RCO/ACB-NZB/2020 was registered. A
search was conducted at the house of the petitioner, along
with two other accused persons on 25.11.2020 and a
1 (2025) 3 S.C.R. 193
search was also conducted pertaining to Bank Locker
No.7 of Axis Bank, Kanteshwar Branch, Nizamabad Town,
jointly owned by the petitioner and his wife namely
Thirumala Jyothi. In the said search, police found net
cash of Rs.34,40,200/-, gold worth Rs.9,12,800/- and
silver worth Rs.1,020/-, total worth Rs.43,54,200/- and
the same were seized.
7. The record further reveals that the D.S.P., ACB,
Nizamabad Range had issued notice on 20.10.2021
directing the petitioner to submit explanation as to how he
acquired the above said cash, gold and silver, which were
seized by the police from the joint locker. Pursuant to the
same, the petitioner has submitted explanation on
03.11.2021, wherein he stated that he received cash of
Rs.34,40,200/- from his father, who alienated the
ancestral agriculture land to an extent of Ac.0-39 guntas,
by executing the Agreement of Sale on 14.04.2019 and the
gold and silver ornaments belongs to his wife, which were
received by her as stridhana property. After considering
the said explanation, the Department after obtaining
necessary permission from the Government, registered the
present crime against the petitioner on 28.11.2022 for the
offences punishable under Section 13(1)(b) r/w 13(2) of
the Act on the ground that the petitioner is in possession
of the above mentioned disproportionate assets.
8. The contention of the learned Senior counsel for
the petitioner is that the petitioner in his explanation
specifically stated that he received the net cash of
Rs.34,40,200/- towards his share from his father, who
alienated the ancestral property, by executing Agreement
of Sale, dated 14.09.2019, and copy of the Agreement of
Sale was also enclosed along with the said explanation
and the same was not considered without any reasons.
Whereas the case of the respondent No.2 is that the
Agreement of Sale does not contain the signature of the
person, who executed it and also there are discrepancies
in the said Agreement. Whether the petitioner had
received the seized amount from his father pertaining to
the sale consideration of his share arising out of the above
said Agreement of Sale dated 14.09.2019, is disputed fact
and the same has to be revealed during the course of
investigation.
9. Insofar as the other contention raised by the
learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner that the
respondent did not consider the income of the wife of the
petitioner, who is a Government employee, working as a
Secondary Grade Teacher (SGT) since 2010, and that if
her income is taken into consideration while assessing the
disproportionate assets, there would be no
disproportionate of assets, is also disputed fact and the
same cannot be adjudicated at this stage.
10. The respondent in the counter mentioned the
reasons for delay in registration of the present crime
occurred because of the necessary sanction from the
Government. It is also mentioned that they have already
taken a decision to file Appeal before the Hon'ble Supreme
Court, aggrieved by the order, dated 01.08.2022, passed
by this Court in Crl.P.No.9027 of 2021 and sanction is
pending before the Government.
11. The allegations made in the earlier complaint in
Crime No.5/RCO/ACB-NZB/2020 and the allegations
made in present complaint, are different and distinct. In
the present complaint, there are specific allegations
against the petitioner that he possessed huge amount of
Rs.34,40,200/-, for which he has not accounted
satisfactorily and the petitioner being a Government
employee possessed huge amount of net cash, other gold
and silver jewellery, for which he could not satisfactorily
account for and he is possessing disproportionate assets.
12. In State of Rajasthan v. Surendra Singh
Rathore 2, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that a second
FIR is maintainable when it is founded on new facts or a
larger conspiracy, applying the "test of sameness" from
Babu Bhai v. State of Gujarat 3 and Nirmal Singh
Kahlon v. State of Punjab 4. The Hon'ble Supreme Court
observed that while the first FIR related to a specific bribe
demand, the second arose from surveillance-based inputs
revealing a broader pattern of corruption, and therefore
the High Court erred in quashing it. Similarly, in CBI v.
Thommandru Hannah Vijayalakshmi 5, the Hon'ble
Supreme Court held that the High Court cannot conduct a
"mini-trial" at the stage of quashing, nor scrutinize
financial documents or weigh evidence like a Chartered
Accountant; its role is limited to seeing whether the FIR
2 2025 SCC OnLine SC 358
3 (2010) 12 SCC 254
4 (2010) 12 SCC 254
5 (2021) 18 SCC 135
discloses a cognizable offence, and the absence of a
preliminary enquiry is not a ground to quash.
13. The principles laid down by the Hon'ble Apex
Court supra are squarely applicable to the facts and
circumstance of the case, as the earlier crime against the
petitioner related to different allegations, whereas the
present FIR concerns the distinct offence of possessing
disproportionate assets. Since the present FIR discloses a
cognizable offence and is based on material different from
the earlier crime, the bar on a second FIR is not attracted,
and the quashing sought by the petitioner is unwarranted.
The petitioner's explanations regarding his wife's salary or
the alleged Agreement of Sale are disputed facts that
require investigation and cannot be adjudicated at this
stage.
14. It is well settled that the power under Section
482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to quash a First
Information Report is to be exercised sparingly and with
great caution, and only in the rarest of rare cases where
the allegations in the FIR, even if taken at their face value,
do not disclose the commission of any offence. The
Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal 6
issued a note of caution that such extraordinary power
cannot be invoked to stifle a legitimate investigation or to
embark upon an inquiry into the truth or otherwise of the
allegations. An FIR is not required to be an encyclopedia
of all facts relating to the alleged offence. It is only
intended to set the criminal law in motion and to enable
the investigating agency to collect material to ascertain
the truth of the allegations. The law does not require that
all the ingredients of the offence must be spelled out in
the FIR. As observed in Rajesh Bajaj v. State (NCT of
Delhi) 7, the absence of detailed particulars or one or two
ingredients does not justify quashing at the threshold if a
factual foundation for the alleged offence exists.
15. For the foregoing reasons as well as the principles laid
down by the Hon'ble Apex Court supra, this Court does not
find any ground to quash the proceedings in No.07/RCA-
ACB-NZB/2022 of ACB Police Station, Nizamabad Range
against the petitioner.
16. In the result, the criminal petition is dismissed.
6 (1992 Supp (1) SCC 335
7 (1999) 3 SCC 259
As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous applications,
if any, pending in this petition stand closed.
______________________________
JUSTICE J.SREENIVAS RAO
Date: .11.2025
pgp
