The court held that the allegations against the petitioner did not attract the ingredients of the offences under Sections 403, 409, and 188 IPC. It also held that the FIR was registered without conducting a preliminary enquiry, as required by the Supreme Court in Lalitha Kumari v. Govt. Of U.P. The court further held that the FIR was registered with malafide intention, as it was based on a letter written by a whistleblower who alleged that the petitioner was a friend of a former CBI officer who had investigated cases against the present Chief Minister.

ORDER

1. This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of FIR in Cr.No.22/2019 dated 15.12.2019 registered on the file of CID Head Quarters PS, Mangalagiri, under Sections 188, 403, 409, 120(B) IPC and AP Economic Development Board Act 2018.

2. Heard Sri Naga Muthu, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of Sri J.V.Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri T.M.K.Chaitanya, Standing Counsel for CID, appearing for the respondent-State.

3. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner is a Chartered Accountant by qualification till he was selected in Indian Revenue Service in 1991. He was posted as Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Bangalore in 1993 and continued till November, 1998. His performance during this tenure was rated as outstanding. Thereafter the petitioner was posted as a Senior Technical Officer, Central Economic Intelligence Bureau, New Delhi from November 1998 to till 30.09.1999. Pursuant thereto, the petitioner was on deputation as Principal Secretary to the Union Minster of State for Agriculture and Union Minister for Rural Development. During the period from September 2003 till January 2012, the petitioner was worked as Additional commissioner of Income Tax in Faridabad, Chandigarh and Hyderabad, thereafter promoted as the Commissioner of Income Tax w.e.f.26.01.2012 and posted in Vijayawada and Guntur, after which he was taken on deputation as Private Secretary to the Union Minister for Civil Aviation, Government of India between 02.06.2014 till 31.03.2015.

4. In view of the requirements of the State of Andhra Pradesh, the petitioner owing to his outstanding career and large experience was requested by the State of Andhra Pradesh to make available his services on deputation as the Chief Executive Officer (CEO) of the APEDB with the Grade of Special Secretary to the state of Andhra Pradesh. The petitioner having expressed his willingness to serve the state, the State of Andhra Pradesh vide letter dated 05.05.2015 requested the Ministry of Civil Aviation, Government of India to allow him to join the State Government after approval of Competent authority and the same was acceded to. Thereafter, the Government of Andhra Pradesh took cadre clearance from the Ministry of Finance, Government of India to enable the petitioner to work on deputation as special Secretary. Thus, the petitioner was appointed on the aforesaid possession for a period of three years, from 28.08.2015 till September 2018. In view of the remarkable performance of the petitioner as the CEO of the APEDB, the State of AP requested the petitioner to continue on deputation for the further period of 2 years i.e., from 30.08.2018 till 28.08.2020. Every action taken by the APEDB has to be approved by the Board, which also has internal auditors, who are Chartered Accountants of a reputed firm.

5. Further submitted that the vide letter dated 24.05.2019 requested the Government of Andhra Pradesh to relieve him from the Government of Andhra Pradesh so as to enable him to be repatriated back to his present department. The petitioner after the elections in 2019 in the State of Andhra Pradesh and the consequent formation of the new Government on 30.05.2019 was meted with hostile attitude and as a consequence of it, the petitioner was transferred to the General administration Department without any posting and salary. On 12.12.2019 the petitioner was promoted as the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax vide Order No.253/2019 dated 12.12.2019, within the hours of the issuance of the promotion letter, the petitioner was suspended by the State of Andhra Pradesh on the same date i.e., 12.12.2019 on account of alleged irregularities committed during the period the petitioner was the CEO of the APEDB by referring to a report of the Industries, Infrastructure, Investment and Commerce Department which had nothing to do administratively with APEDB. The aforesaid act of the State Government was malafide and done with the sole