The court quashed proceedings against the petitioner due to lack of specific allegations or evidence linking him to the misappropriation of funds.

ORDER :

This criminal petition is filed by the petitioner/accused No.5 under Section 528 of B.N.S.S., seeking to quash the proceedings against the petitioner in C.C.No.706 of 2018 on the file of XXII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Secunderabad, registered under Sections 406 , 408, 420, 477-A, 109 120(B) r/w 34 IPC .

2. Brief facts of the case are that a complaint has been filed on 28.06.2017 by one Avinash Gupta, President of the Deccan Club alleging misappropriation of funds against employees of the Deccan Club. Basing on the said complaint, a case in Crime No.136 of 2017 was registered by P.S. Tukaramgate, Secunderabad, for the offences under Sections 406 , 408, 420, 477-A, 109, 120(B) IPC arraying A1 to A6. Thereafter, investigation has been carried out by L.W.57 and charge sheet was laid in C.C.No.706 of 2018 on the file of XXII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Secunderabad. The petitioner herein is A5.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would vehemently contend that the police conducted investigation arraying the petitioner as A5. Except stating that A5 involved along with A6, who is none other than the father-in-law of A1, who had purchased trucks from West Bengal, there is nothing against the petitioner/A5. He also submits that the coordinate Bench of this Court quashed the proceedings against A6 in Criminal Petition No.3432 of 2025, vide order dated 23.06.2025 mainly on the ground that the police has not conducted investigation as per the material placed on record before the said Court and A6 is a stranger and that the only allegation levelled against A6 was that he has utilised the funds received from A1 and A2 for purchasing tractors and misappropriated the funds. He further submits that during the course of investigation, the police found that A6 purchased vehicles through TATA finance and utilised the alleged proceeds for building their bodies. He also submits that A6 is a stranger to the alleged misappropriation of funds. Since there is no evidence against A6 proving misappropriation of funds, continuation of criminal proceedings is an abuse of process of law, as such, the proceedings against A6 were quashed.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the present petitioner is arrayed as A5 in C.C.No.706 of 2018. There is no specific allegation against him. There is no evidence to show that A5 misappropriated the funds. There is no relationship that has been established by the police with A1, as such, continuance of criminal proceedings against A5 is nothing but abuse of process of law, subjecting the petitioner/A5 to tribulations of trial is not warranted and seeks to quash the proceedings against petitioner/A5.

5. On the other hand, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor would submit that there was misappropriation of funds to a tune of Rs.1.50 Crores and that A1 has misused his official position in the club and had transferred funds to the accounts of his kith and kin and one among them is A5, who misappropriated the funds and that trial has to be conducted. He also submits that A5 is absconding and that he is not cooperating with investigation, the truth or otherwise can only be elicited if the petitioner/A5 is subjected to investigation, and sought for dismissal of the petition.

6. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor and upon perusal of the record placed before this Court and also after perusal of the charge sheet, there is no specific role attributed against A5 in the misappropriation of funds. The petitioner/A5 does not fall within the ambit of Section 408 of IPC . For the sake of convenience