The court emphasized that the power under Section 482 CrPC to quash criminal proceedings should be exercised sparingly, focusing on whether a prima facie case exists based on the allegations.

ORDER:

K. Lakshman, J.

The present criminal petition is filed under Section 482 CrPC seeking to quash the criminal proceedings in C.C. No. 14/2012 pending on the file of Court of Principal Special Judge for CBI cases at Red Hills, Nampally Hyderabad (hereinafter called as ‘Trial Court’).

2. Heard Mr. T. Niranajan Reddy, learned senior counsel representing Mr. T. Nagarjuna Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Srinivas Kapatia, learned Special Public Prosecutor for the Central Bureau of Investigation (hereinafter called as ‘CBI’).

Factual Background

3. The present case has a chequered history and has its roots in the politics of the erstwhile united Andhra Pradesh. The case was registered based on the order dated 10.08.2011 passed by the erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh in W.P. Nos. 794/2011 and 6604/2011.

4. The said order was passed in public interest litigations wherein CBI inquiry was directed. It was alleged that the petitioner herein along with many other businessmen and industrialists invested in the companies of Mr. Y.S. Jagan Mohan Reddy (son of the then Chief Minister - Y.S. Rajashekhar Reddy), who later became the Chief Minister of the newly formed Andhra Pradesh. As quid pro quo to those investments, government projects were allotted to such investors.

5. Noting that, prima facie, there were financial misdeeds of huge magnitude and that government projects were allotted to the investors in Mr. Y.S. Jagan Mohan Reddy’s companies, CBI was directed to conduct inquiry.

6. The order dated 10.08.2011 specifically records the allegations against the petitioner herein that he had invested huge amounts in Mr. Y.S. Jagan Mohan Reddy’s companies. The allegations also note that the present petitioner was allotted the Vanpic Project to develop ports, in exchange for his investment in Mr. Y.S. Jagan Mohan Reddy’s companies. It was alleged that, after the allotment of the project, the petitioner used his influence with the then Chief Minister and his son - Mr. Y.S. Jagan Mohan Reddy and got allotted huge chunks of lands.

Charge sheet filed by the CBI and cognizance by the Trial Court

7. Based on the order dated 10.08.2011 in W.P. Nos. 794/2011 and 6604/2011, the CBI registered a case (RC No. 19(A)/HYD/2011) under Sections 120B, 420, 409, 419, 467, 468, 471 and 477A of the Indian Penal Code. A total of seventy-three (73) accused were named including the petitioner herein.

8. The petitioner herein was arrested on 15.05.2012. He was enlarged on bail on 18.10.2013. On 13.08.2012, the CBI filed a charge sheet against fourteen (14) accused.

9. Mr. Y.S. Jagan Mohan Reddy was arraigned as Accused No. 1 and his financial advisor was arraigned as Accused No. 2. Petitioner herein was arraigned as Accused No. 3. Mr. Mopidevi Venkata Ramana Rao, the then Minister for Infrastructure & Investment was arraigned as Accused No. 4. Mr. Dharmana Prasada Rao, the Minister for the Revenue Department was named as Accused No. 5. Mr. K.V. Brahmananda Reddy, the then Special Secretary of Infrastructure & Investment department and Dr. Manmohan Singh, the then Secretary of the Infrastructure & Investment department were named as Accused Nos. 6 and 7 respectively. Mr. M. Samuel, the then Principal Secretary to the Revenue Department was named as Accused No. 8. Mr. Nimmagadda Prakash, brother of the petitioner herein was named as Accused No. 9. M/s Vanpic Projects Pvt. Ltd., the company of the petitioner herein was named as Accused No. 10. Accused Nos. 11 to 14 were the companies owned by Mr. Y.S. Jagan Mohan Reddy in which the petitioner herein and others purchased shares.

10. Based on the charge sheet, the Trial Court vide order dt. 13.09.2012 took cognizance against all the fourteen (14) accused. It noted that such cognizance is being taken after perusal of the charge sheet, relevant documents and office note.

11. It is after the cognizance was taken that the present petitioner has filed the present criminal petition seeking to quash the entire criminal