Back
2024 Supreme(AP) 1064
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATHI
VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA, J.
B. Annapurna – Petitioner
Versus
State by and Others – Respondents
Criminal Petition No. 4365 of 2020
Decided On : 07-03-2024
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner: O. Manoher Reddy.
IMPORTANT POINT
The court ruled that procedural irregularities do not constitute criminal breach of trust under Section 409 IPC, allowing the quashing of proceedings against the Petitioner.
Headnote:
(A) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 482 - Quashing of proceedings - Petitioner sought to quash proceedings under Section 409 IPC for alleged misappropriation of funds - Court found no criminal breach of trust, only procedural irregularity - Continuation of proceedings deemed an abuse of process of law. (Paras 9, 12, 13)
(B) Criminal Jurisprudence - Inherent powers of High Court - Powers to prevent abuse of process and secure ends of justice - Not functioning as a court of appeal or revision. (Paras 9, 10)
Facts of the case:
The Petitioner, a Sarpanch, was accused of irregularities in fund usage without prior permission, leading to a criminal complaint despite repayment of the amount owed.
Findings of Court:
The court determined that the actions of the Petitioner constituted procedural irregularities rather than misappropriation, warranting quashing of the proceedings.
Issues: The main issue was whether the allegations constituted an offence under Section 409 IPC.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the allegations did not meet the threshold for criminal breach of trust, emphasizing the need for compelling reasons to invoke inherent powers to quash proceedings.
Result: Criminal petition allowed, proceedings quashed.
ORDER :
1. The instant petition under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [for short ‘Cr.P.C.’] has been filed by the Petitioner/Accused, seeking to quash the proceedings against him in Crime No. 42 of 2020 of II Town Police Station, Bhimavaram, West Godavari District which was registered for the offence punishable under Section 409 of the Indian Penal Code [for short ‘I.P.C.’].
2. The present case has been registered against the Petitioner on the following allegations:
(a) Petitioner has committed certain irregularities in discharge of her duties as a Surpanch of China Amiram Gram Panchayat. Based on report, the District Collector, West Godavari, Eluru had issued proceedings holding that the Petitioner has spent the amount for the purchase of the material without prior permission, which is irregular and procedural lapse on the part of the Petitioner.
(b) Questioning the Order passed by the District Collector, the Petitioner preferred Revision before the Government, which was dismissed on the ground of limitation.
(c) Thereafter, the Tahsildar, Bhimavaram was directed to file a criminal complaint against the Petitioner on the ground that she had failed to remit the amount along with penal interest, to the Gram Panchayat till that date.
(d) Petitioner filed a W.P. questioning the Order of revision and also the consequential proceedings issued by the Government.
(e) The Tahsildar, Bhimavaram also issued a notice dated 04.02.2020 to the Petitioner directing her to pay the amount within seven days from the date of receipt of the notice. Accordingly, Petitioner has paid the amount along with interest.
(f) Before payment of the amount by the Petitioner, the complaint was filed, which is registered as a case in Crime No. 42 of 2020 of II Town Police Station, Bhimavaram, West Godavari District on 06.02.2020.
3. Aggrieved by the registration of the said crime, Petitioner/Accused filed the present petition seeking quashment of proceedings against her, on the following grounds:
(i) Petitioner has spent the amount for the purchase of the material, however, without obtaining prior permission, which comes under procedural irregularity but does not fall within the ambit of Section 409 IPC. To attract the provisions of Section 409 IPC, there should be criminal breach of trust.
(ii) The allegations made in the complaint do not constitute the alleged offence.
(iii) Though the Petitioner has paid the amount, as directed by the Tahsildar within the prescribed period, the criminal proceedings are initiated against the Petitioner, which is nothing but an abuse of process of law.
(iv) The allegations made against the Petitioner are all false. Hence, prayed to quash the proceedings against the Petitioner.
Arguments Advanced at the Bar
4. Heard Sri O. Manohar Reddy, learned counsel for the Petitioner and Ms. D. Prasanna Lakshmi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor representing the State/Respondent Nos. 1 and 2.
5. Learned counsel for the Petitioner would submit that the Petitioner has been falsely implicated in the case without any truth or otherwise of the allegations mentioned in the complaint. It is pointed out that it has been alleged that the Petitioner misused the Government funds, which had been released for installation of CC Cameras including the internet at the godown of Adharana tools and the Petitioner had executed the works. It is contended that enquiry report cannot be the basis for lodging a criminal complaint against the Petitioner.
6. Learned counsel further submits that there are no ingredients to attract the offence punishable under Section 409 IPC against the Petitioner. Therefore, continuation of criminal proceedings against the Petitioner is an abuse of process of law. Hence, prayed to quash the proceedings against the Petitioner.
7. Refuting the same, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor would submit that there are specific allegations against the Petitioner for the commission of the alleged offence under Section 409 IPC. There are no
