The main legal point established in the judgment is that the exercise of powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C to quash the proceedings is an exception and not a rule, and the appreciation of evidence is not permissible at the stage of quashing the proceedings.

ORDER :

In this Criminal Petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short “Cr.P.C”) petitioner/accused seeks to quash the proceedings against him in Crime No.138 of 2009 of Mandapeta Rural Police Station, East Godavari District, registered for the offence under Sections 403, 406 and 409 IPC.

2. The 2nd respondent is the de facto complainant, who was the-then Deputy Executive Engineer, lodged a report to the Police alleging that the Managing Director of Andhra Pradesh State Housing Corporation Limited (A.P.S.H.C.L.), Hyderabad, has ordered for third party enquiry basing on the adverse news items published in Eenadu daily newspaper and the complaint petitions received from MPP and ZPTC, Mandapeta, through M/s. Gayathri Rural Educational Society. Basing on the enquiry report submitted by the Executive Engineer(Housing), Amalapuram, it was found that certain grave irregularities were committed by the petitioner herein and seven others in construction of Indiramma Housing Colonies at Tapeswaram Village, Mandapeta Mandal. It is alleged that there are lot of lapses in implementing the procedures besides high misappropriation involved which could only clearly be established at the second level enquiry besides taking appropriate action based on the first level report. The irregularities pointed out in the report, are i) the amounts paid without starting house or to ineligible candidates, ii) amount paid to old houses, iii) double payments made to same houses, and iv) amount paid to Pink Ration Card holders and the amount involved is Rs.59,98,000/- and the Executive Magistrate-cum-District Collector, APSHCL, East Godavari District directed the Deputy Executive Engineer, Housing, Rajahmundry to file a case (F.I.R) against the persons, who committed irregularities in construction of Indiramma Housing Colonies in Tapeswaram Village of Mandapeta Mandal for misappropriation of funds of Rs.59,98,000/-. On the basis of the said report, a case in Crime No.138 of 2009 was registered by Mandapeta Rural Police Station, East Godavari District for the offence under Sections 403, 406 and 409 IPC against eight persons wherein the petitioner herein was shown as one of the accused. The said crime was investigated and eventually found prima facie evidence against the petitioner/accused herein and others. When the investigation is at the fag end, the petitioner herein approached this Court, seeking to quash the criminal proceedings in the above crime against him.

3. Heard Sri G.L.Nageswara Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri P.M. Mithileswara Reddy, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the 1st respondent-State.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that one Saladi Venkateswara Rao (Srinu Babu), who was the husband of the Sarpanch, Tapeswaram Village has committed the misappropriation, but the Petitioner herein is no way concerned with the alleged offence. Further, he would submit that the Executive Engineer is the Supervising Authority against the petitioner/accused and to release the funds. Further, he would submit that the act of misappropriation of funds cannot be attributed against the petitioner herein only since the Superiors of the petitioner/accused are also responsible and to save their responsibility, fixed the liability against the petitioner/accused, though he is no way connected for misappropriation of funds. Further, he would submit that even if the entire accusations in the First Information Report are accepted to be true and correct, no prima facie case for the offences alleged is made out against the petitioner/accused and that there is no dishonest intention on the part of the petitioner/accused to commit criminal breach of trust right from its inception. Therefore, the criminal complaint filed by the 2nd respondent is frivolous and vexatious. Hence, he prays to quash the impugned proceedings.

5. On the other hand, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor opposed the petition stating t