The absence of cogent evidence linking the petitioner to the alleged offenses under IPC sections 120B, 409, 420, 468, 471, and 477A necessitated the quashing of criminal proceedings.

ORDER :

HARINATH.N, J.

1. The present criminal petition is filed seeking to quash CC 1107 of 2023 on the file of V Additional Junior Civil Judge – Cum - V Additional Metropolitan Magistrate Vijaywada. The petitioner is arraigned as accused number 17 in the said case for the alleged offenses under Section 120B. 409, 420, 468, 471, 477A of IPC.

2. As per the complaint filed by the respondent, the first accused enter into a criminal conspiracy with private persons and caused wrongful loss and corresponding wrongful gain to themselves by misusing his official position by making premature closure of government deposits of Andhra Pradesh Building and other Construction workers welfare board Hyderabad and misappropriated funds of Rs.12,00,00,000.

3. It is the case for the prosecution that accused Nos.1 to 30 entered into criminal conspiracy during the period March 2014 to June 2015 with an intention to cheat Syndicate Bank SME Branch, Kadapa and in pursuance of the said conspiracy, the 1^st accused has misused his official position by closing the deposits of Andhra Pradesh Building and other Construction Welfare Workers, Hyderabad prematurely and transferring the funds to the accounts of third parties. The accused Nos. 2 and 5 have been instrumental in transfer of an amount of Rs.12,00,00,000/- into various accounts and thereafter the said amounts were shared amounts the accused.

4. As per the charge sheet filed by the 2^nd respondent the first accused had transferred amounts to the second accused and the 5^th accused was instrumental in obtaining an open offer letter from the first accused with regard to the interest rate on domestic term deposit of Rs.10,00,00,000 and above. It is also stated that the 5^th accused has introduced himself as Manager of Syndicate Bank, Kadapa to the Secretary and CEO of Andhra Pradesh building and other construction workers welfare board and submitted the offer letter issued by accused number one and sought deposits. The Secretary and CEO accepted the proposal of the 5^th accused and thereafter prepared a note to invest Rs.7,00,00,000/- with Syndicate Bank SME branch, Kadapa and subsequently transferred the same for fixed deposits. It is the case of the prosecution that the accused number 2 had handed over the original fixed deposit receipt to accused number 5 at Hyderabad for making a fake FDR in the name of AP Building and other construction workers welfare board (hereinafter be referred as ‘welfare board’). A fake FDR was generated by the 5^th accused and he submitted the fake FDR with the with the welfare board.

5. It is also stated in the charge sheet that the first accused issued another photocopy of the letter intimating the interest rate on domestic term deposits of Rs.10,00,00,000/- and above to accused number 5. The accused number five thereafter got another depot deposit of Rs.5,00,00,000 from the welfare board. The 5^th accused again got fake FDR on the name of welfare board and submitted the fake FDR for record purposes to the welfare board.

6. These deposits were prematurely closed by furnishing the original FDR receipts with the bank. The 5^th accused had submitted fake FDR receipts with the welfare board for their records and retained the original FD receipts which were misused by the 5^th accused. The first accused misused his position and transferred the prematurely closed fixed deposits amount. Thus, the accused have committed offences charged under Section 120B. 409, 420, 468, 471, 477-A of IPC.

7. It is also stated in the charge sheet that the second accused had withdrawn amount of Rs.1,69,00,000/- from the amounts deposited into the account of universal minerals and chemicals and subsequently the said amount was shared amongst accused Nos.1 to 3 and 5. The charge sheet also details the manner in which the amounts were transferred from one account to the other account and how the other accused had allegedly withdrawn the amounts.

8. In so far as the role of the petitioner is concerned it is stated