The High Court emphasized that allegations must show a prima facie case for quashing proceedings, highlighting the need for full trial when substantial factual disputes exist.

ORDER :

K. SUJANA, J.

This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short ‘Cr.P.C.’) to quash the proceedings against the petitioner/accused in C.C.No.7589 of 2021 on the file of the learned IV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 409 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short ‘IPC’).

2. The brief facts of the case are that respondent No.2/de facto complainant lodged a complaint against the petitioner stating that the petitioner who is the Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies, served as Liquidator for Aryan Cooperative Urban Bank Limited from 02.04.2014, to 12.03.2015. Upon submitting the final report and special report for the year 2014-15, the auditor uncovered irregularities attributed to the petitioner. It is further stated that the Auditor found irregularities against the petitioner in the special report. The Divisional Co-operative Officer conducted an independent inquiry under Section 60 of the Telangana Co-operative Societies Act, 1964 (for short ‘the Act’), and found the petitioner guilty of irregularities during her tenure and issued surcharge orders. Basing on the said complaint, the Police registered a case in Crime No.38 of 2019 for the offences punishable under Sections 409 and 420 of IPC and after completion of investigation, they filed charge sheet, vide C.C.No.7589 of 2021, before the learned IV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad. Aggrieved thereby, this criminal petition is filed.

3. Heard Sri N. Bujanga Rao, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner as well as Sri D. Arun Kumar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of respondent No.1-State. Though notice served upon respondent No.2, none appeared on her behalf.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was appointed as liquidator of Aryan Co-operative Urban Bank, Nallakunta Branch, and is facing allegations of illegal debit of Rs.22,000/- from bank funds for conveyance charges and wrongful loss to the bank due to expenditures incurred towards two cooperative societies. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the petitioner has acted within her powers and had taken steps for reimbursement and the same was also received from the respective societies. He contended that the petitioner obtained oral approval from the superior Officer before allowing One Time Settlement (OTS) to borrower Bapu Reddy. The superior Officer gave approval for the OTS, indicating that no action be taken against the borrower for recovery of the total loan amount.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that as the petitioner is the public servant/Officer of cooperative Department, she is not entrusted with organization or affairs/management of the society, as such, making surcharge proceedings under Section 60 of the Act is inapplicable. He further submitted that this Court granted interim suspension of the surcharge order dated 29.04.2022 in I.A.No.2 of 2022 in W.P.No.2288 of 2022. Therefore, the allegations leveled against the petitioner are vague and baseless and the same do not constitute the offence as alleged by respondent No.2. Hence, he prayed the Court to quash the proceedings that are initiated against the petitioner.

6. Per contra, learned Additional Public Prosecutor opposed the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner stating that the allegations leveled against the petitioner, requires trial. Hence, he prayed the Court to dismiss the criminal petition.

7. At this stage, it is imperative to note th