The court upheld the validity of criminal proceedings for misappropriation of public funds, emphasizing that allegations warranted investigation and did not merit quashing the FIR.

ORDER :

K. Sujana, J.

The lis involved in these two petitions being one and the same, both the criminal petitions are heard together and are being decided by way of this common order.

2. These Criminal Petitions are filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short ‘Cr.P.C’) whereunder, Criminal Petition No.2655 of 2024 is filed to quash the proceedings initiated against the petitioners/accused Nos.1 and 2 and Criminal Petition No.2634 of 2024 is filed to quash the proceedings initiated against the petitioner/accused No.3 in F.I.R.No.27/2024 on the file of the Manthani Police Station, Ramagundam Commissionerate, Peddapalli District, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 409 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code (for short ‘IPC’).

3. The brief facts of the case are that on 29.02.2024 the complainant/respondent NO.2 who is the District Manager of the Telangana State Civil Supplies Corporation Limited, Peddapalli District, lodged complaint against accused No.1 - Sri B.Prakash Rao (petitioner No.1 in Crl.P.No.2655/2024) accused NO.2 – Sri B.Varaprasad Rao (petitioner No.2 in Crl.P.No.2655/2024) and accused No.3 – Sri M.Suman Kumar (petitioner in Crl.P.No.2634/2024). The accused No.1 is the Managing Partner and accused Nos.2 and 3 are partners in Maruthi Industries.

4. It is stated in the complaint that on 09.01.2024 when the respondent No.2 visited Maruthi Industries, Kuchirajpalli, Manthani, he found that there is no paddy in the rice mill which was supplied by the Government to the said rice mill for custom milling during khariff season 2022-2023 under the Minimum Support Price (for short ‘MSP’) and that the rice was not delivered to FCI Godowns and that the accused persons misappropriated about 70,893.56 quintals of paddy, worth Rs.21,64,05,173.00/- and dishonestly caused loss and wrongful gain and cheated the Government, as such, requested the Police to take necessary action.

5. Basing on the said complaint, the Police registered FIR.No.27/2024 for offences punishable under Sections 406, 409 and 420 of IPC. It is the contention of respondent No.2 that quantity of 75174.80 quintals of paddy was purchased under MSP and the same was handed over to accused Nos.1 and 2 for custom milling but there was a shortage of 69762.76 quintals of quantity of paddy, as such, came to the conclusion that accused persons sold away the Government paddy unauthorizedly and accordingly, lodged complaint before the Police and the Police in turn, registered FIR.No.27/2024 against the accused persons. Aggrieved thereby, the accused Nos.1 and 2 filed Crl.P.No.2655 of 2024 and accused No.3 filed Crl.P.NO.2634 of 2024.

6. Heard Sri G.Venkata Siddhartha, learned counsel for petitioners in Crl.P.No.2655 of 2024, Sri K.Venu Madhav, learned counsel for petitioner in Crl.P.No.2634 of 2024 and Sri P.Nageshwar Rao, learned Public Prosecutor, appearing for respondent No.1 – State in both the matters.

7. Learned counsel appearing for petitioners in Crl.P.No.2655 of 2024 (accused Nos.1 and 2) would submit that though the de facto complainant is authorized to recover the balance amount as per the provision available in the Revenue Recovery Act, 1864, respondent No.2 chose to initiate criminal proceedings against the accused persons only to arm twist them to recover the money without following the due process of law. He further submitted that an agreement was entered into between the accused Nos.1 and 2 and respondent No.2 which provides disqualifying debarring and instead of taking recourse to the same, the respondent NO.2 has lodged complaint against accused Nos.1 and 2 and the same is unwarranted and abuse of process of law. He contended that without proper cognizance and without properly investigating the matter, the respondent NO.1 registered a case against the accused Nos.1 and 2 and that as per the terms and conditions of the agreement entered into between the parties, the accused Nos.1 and 2 are liable to pay an amount of Rs.21