Research › Search › Judgment

Telangana High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 1350 (TS)

Ch. Venu Gopal v. State of Telangana

2025-10-30

J.SREENIVAS RAO

body2025
ORDER : J. Sreenivas Rao, J. This Criminal Petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure , 1973 (for short, ‘Cr.P.C.’) by the petitioner/accused seeking to quash the proceedings in FIR No.03/ACB-KNR/2022 of ACB Police Station, Karimnagar Range, registered for the offences under Section 13 (1)(a) of the Prevention of Corruption Act , 1988 (as amended in 2018) (hereinafter referred to as, ‘the Act’) and Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code , 1860 (for short ‘IPC’). 2. Brief facts of the case: 2.1 The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner worked as Deputy Superintendent of Police (DSP), Anti- Corruption Bureau (ACB), Nizamabad. Earlier, while discharging his duties as Circle Inspector of Police, ACB, Karimnagar, he had conducted investigation in several cases, however, he did not deposit the case properties including trap amounts, gold ornaments, mobile phones, DVDs, chemical samples and other items, seized during the course of investigation in multiple cases, which were required to be deposited in the Court or hand over to his successors, but he failed to do so. In particular, he did not deposit or hand over the trap amounts of Rs.30,000/-, Rs.1,00,000/-, and Rs.1,50,000/-, an iPhone, and several gold ornaments, out of which some ornaments were later found to be counterfeit upon appraisal. The cases affected include Crime No.07/ACB-KNR/2017, Crime No.09/ACB- KNR/2017, Crime No.04/ACB-KNR/2018 and Crime No.14/ACB-KNR/2009, and he deliberately misappropriated and suppressed case properties, thereby obstructing the course of justice. Acting upon the directions of the Government of Telangana and the ACB authorities, the present crime was registered for the aforementioned offences. Hence, the petitioner filed the present criminal petition seeking to quash the proceedings in the present crime. 3. Heard Sri Ch.Venkat Raman, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri T.Bala Mohan Reddy, learned Special Public Prosecutor, appearing on behalf of respondent- State. 4. Submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner: 4.1 Learned counsel submitted that the petitioner has not committed any offence and he was falsely implicated in the present case. Even according to the allegations made in the complaint, the ingredients for the offences under Section 13 (1)(a) of the Act and Section 201 of IPC do not attract against the petitioner. Submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner: 4.1 Learned counsel submitted that the petitioner has not committed any offence and he was falsely implicated in the present case. Even according to the allegations made in the complaint, the ingredients for the offences under Section 13 (1)(a) of the Act and Section 201 of IPC do not attract against the petitioner. He further submitted that the petitioner had taken full additional charge of Inspector of Police, Anti-Corruption Bureau (ACB), Karimnagar and he worked from 07.11.2017 to 02.04.2021 and on his promotion as DSP, he handed over CD files pertaining to ACB, Karimnagar, to his successor namely S.P.Ravinder, on 06.05.2021. In turn, the said S.P.Ravinder handed over the same to A.Thirupathi, on 01.06.2021. 4.2 He further submitted that the only allegation made against the petitioner is that he failed to hand over the case properties and trap amount in i) Crime No.07/ACB- KNR/2017, ii) Crime No.09/ACB-KNR/2017, iii) Crime No.04/ACB-KNR/2018, and iv) Crime No.14/ACB- KNR/2009 and he did not make any effort to report the missing trap amounts and mobile phone to his superior Officers and thereby he committed gross negligence towards his duties. The petitioner is not responsible for the missing trap amounts and mobile phone. He further submitted that due to the negligence of the Court Head Constable namely G.Sadaiah of ACB, missed the trap amounts in the above three cases. As soon as the petitioner came to know about the said facts, he lodged a complaint on 19.08.2021 to the Director General of ACB, Telangana to take action against the concerned. However, the authorities have not taken any steps in that regard. Hence the ingredients for the offences under Section 13 (1)(a) of the Act and Section 201 of IPC would not attract against the petitioner. 4.3 He also submitted that the Department initiated departmental proceedings against the petitioner basing upon the very same allegations made in the present crime. On that, the petitioner had approached this Court and filed W.P.No.24691 of 2022 questioning the charge memo, dated 30.08.2021, issued by respondent No.2 therein and to declare the same as illegal and consequently direct respondent No.3 therein not to conduct disciplinary proceedings in FIR No.03/ACB-KNR/2022, dated 22.03.2022. On that, the petitioner had approached this Court and filed W.P.No.24691 of 2022 questioning the charge memo, dated 30.08.2021, issued by respondent No.2 therein and to declare the same as illegal and consequently direct respondent No.3 therein not to conduct disciplinary proceedings in FIR No.03/ACB-KNR/2022, dated 22.03.2022. The said writ petition was allowed on 31.10.2022 granting stay of the proceedings in the Departmental Enquiry against the petitioner for a period of two years and further it was made clear that after expiry of two years, the said stay order would get automatically vacated and liberty was given to the respondents to continue the departmental proceedings. Aggrieved by the above said order, the respondents therein filed Writ Appeal No.478 of 2023 and the same was disposed of observing that the stay granted by the learned Single Judge has expired on 31.10.2024 and the appellants therein are at liberty to go ahead with the departmental enquiry against the respondent therein in pursuance of the charge memo, dated 28.08.2021. Once the departmental proceedings are in progress, continuation of the proceedings against the petitioner for the very same allegations is clear abuse of the process of law. 4.4 He further submitted that as per the Handbook pertaining to Chapter-4, the ACB officials are not having authority to conduct investigation and the investigation has to be conducted by local police or CID. In support of his contention, he relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in K.H. Kamaladini vs. State, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1176 5. Submissions of learned Special Public Prosecutor for respondent: 5.1 Learned Special Public Prosecutor submitted that the petitioner has committed several irregularities, while discharging his services as Inspector of Police, ACB, Karimnagar, which are grave in nature, and there is gross negligence towards his duties, as he failed to hand over the important case properties including the trap amounts in Cr.No.07/ACB-KNR/2017, Cr.No.09/ACB-KNR/2017 and Cr.No.04/ACB-KNR/2017. In Crime No.14/ACB- KNR/2009, the petitioner had produced fake gold in place of gold. The petitioner did not make any efforts to report the missing trap amounts and mobile phone to his superior officers. The DSP, ACB, Warangal Range, after conducting detailed enquiry, submitted his enquiry report to the Director General, ACB, Telangana, Hyderabad, on 26.08.2021. In Crime No.14/ACB- KNR/2009, the petitioner had produced fake gold in place of gold. The petitioner did not make any efforts to report the missing trap amounts and mobile phone to his superior officers. The DSP, ACB, Warangal Range, after conducting detailed enquiry, submitted his enquiry report to the Director General, ACB, Telangana, Hyderabad, on 26.08.2021. Pursuant to the said enquiry report, Government of Telangana, Home (Special) Department issued proceedings on 01.11.2021 granting permission for initiation of the disciplinary proceedings and criminal proceedings against the petitioner. After obtaining sanction from the Government of Telangana, the DSP, ACB, Karimnagar, lodged a complaint. Basing upon the same, Crime No.03/ACB-KNR/2022 was registered on 22.03.2022. There are specific allegations against the petitioner that he has not handed over the above mentioned trap amounts to his successor namely A.Tirupathi, Inspector of Police and not deposited the case property in the Court or to his successor and thereby, caused disappearance of the evidence in all the above mentioned four crimes. Hence, the ingredients of Section 13 (1)(a) of the Act and Section 201 of IPC are attracted against the petitioner. 5.2 He further submitted that initiation of the departmental proceedings and criminal proceedings are different and distinct. It is well settled that mere pendency of the departmental proceedings cannot be a ground to seek quashing of the criminal case. Admittedly, the petitioner has approached this Court and filed W.P.No.24691 of 2022 seeking to quash the departmental proceedings basing upon the pendency of criminal proceedings and the said writ petition was allowed granting stay of departmental proceedings for a period of two years and the said period has expired. He further submitted that the Investigating Officer examined 20 witnesses and entire investigation is completed. However, the application submitted by the Department for grant of sanction for filing final report before the concerned Court is pending before the Government and the petitioner is not entitled to seek quashing of the proceedings in the present crime. Analysis: 6. This Court considered the rival submissions made by the respective parties and perused the material available on record. It is not in dispute that the petitioner worked as Inspector of Police, ACB, Karimnagar range from 07.11.2017 to 02.04.2021. Analysis: 6. This Court considered the rival submissions made by the respective parties and perused the material available on record. It is not in dispute that the petitioner worked as Inspector of Police, ACB, Karimnagar range from 07.11.2017 to 02.04.2021. There are specific allegations against the petitioner that while he was discharging his duties as Inspector of Police, ACB, Karimnagar range, he failed to hand over the case properties i.e., the trap amounts of Rs.30,000/- in Cr.No.07/ACB-KNR/2017, Rs.1,50,000/- and one i-phone in Cr.No.09/ACB-KNR/2017 and Rs.1,00,000/- in Cr.No.04/ACB-KNR/2017. On receipt of the gold ornaments seized in Crime No.14/ACB-KNR/2009, A.Thirupathi, got the items weighed and noticing variations in the weight, got them checked by a gold appraiser, who found that the items mentioned in Serial Nos.11 and 16 to 20, which were supposed to be gold, were in fact fake. The DSP, ACB, Warangal range was appointed as Enquiry Officer to conduct enquiry and submit report. Accordingly, he conducted enquiry and submitted report on 26.08.2021, wherein he specifically stated that the petitioner while discharging his duties as Inspector of Police, ACB, Karimnagar, has totally failed in handing over the case properties, due to which, the trap amounts as stated above including the gold property were misplaced and he has not taken any efforts to report the same to his superior officer and thus, there is a gross negligence towards his duties. 7. The record further reveals that basing on the said enquiry report, the Government of Telangana has granted sanction to initiate the disciplinary proceedings as well as criminal proceedings against the petitioner vide Memo No.124/Spl/A1/2021-1, dated 01.11.2021. Pursuant to the same, the DSP, ACB, Warangal range lodged a complaint and basing on the same, the present crime was registered for the offences punishable under Section 13 (1)(a) of the Act and Section 201 of IPC. 8. Pursuant to the same, the DSP, ACB, Warangal range lodged a complaint and basing on the same, the present crime was registered for the offences punishable under Section 13 (1)(a) of the Act and Section 201 of IPC. 8. From perusal of the complaint, it reveals that there are specific allegations against the petitioner that he has not deposited nor handed over the item No.15 i.e. trap amount of Rs.30,000/- to Sri A.Thirupathi, in Crime No.07/ACB-KNR/2017; item No.10 i.e. trap amount of Rs.1,50,000/- and item No.11 i.e. one iphone (S) to Sri A.Thirupathi in Crime No.09/ACB-KNR/2017; item No.6 i.e., trap amount of Rs.1,00,000/- to A.Thirupathi in Crime No.04/ACB-KNR/2018 and on receipt of the gold ornaments seized in Crime No.14/ACB-KNR/2009, A.Thirupathi, weighed the items and found variations in the weight and therefore, got the same checked with gold appraiser and found that items mentioned at Serial Nos.11 and 16 to 20 which were supposed to be gold items were found to be fake gold. 9. It is very much relevant to extract Section 13 (1)(a) of the Act, which reads as follows: “13. Criminal misconduct by a public servant: (1) A public servant is said to commit the offence of criminal misconduct, - (a) if he dishonestly or fraudulently misappropriates or otherwise converts for his own use any property entrusted to him or any property under his control as a public servant or allows any other person so to do;” 10. There is a specific allegation against the petitioner that while he was discharging his duties, he has not deposited the seized trap amounts and other items in four crimes and caused disappearance of the evidence. Hence, this Court is of the considered view that prima facie the ingredients of Section 13 (1)(a) of the Act would attract against the petitioner. 11. In K.H. Kamaladini supra, the Hon’ble Apex Court held that to attract clause (d) of sub-section (1) of Section 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act , it must be specifically alleged that the public servant obtained for himself or for any other person any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage. Where there is no such allegation, and no material to show that the accused agreed to accept or accepted any gratification, or dishonestly misappropriated or converted to his own use any property entrusted to him, the essential ingredients of “criminal misconduct” under Section 13 (1)(d) are not satisfied. Where there is no such allegation, and no material to show that the accused agreed to accept or accepted any gratification, or dishonestly misappropriated or converted to his own use any property entrusted to him, the essential ingredients of “criminal misconduct” under Section 13 (1)(d) are not satisfied. Consequently, the offence punishable under Section 13 (2) of the Act would also not be attracted. The Court therefore, held that, in the absence of these foundational allegations, no case was made out to proceed against the accused for offences under Sections 13 (1)(d) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act . 12. The principle relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner is not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case. It is already stated supra, there are specific allegations levelled against the petitioner to attract the ingredients of Section 13 (1)(a) of the Act and Section 201 of IPC. 13. The record further reveals that the petitioner had approached this Court and filed W.P.No.24691 of 2022 seeking a writ of mandamus declaring the charge memo dated 30.08.2021 issued by respondent No.2 therein as illegal and consequently sought direction to respondent No.3 therein not to conduct disciplinary proceedings pending enquiry in FIR No.03/ACB-KNR/2022, dated 22.03.2022, and the said writ petition was allowed on 31.10.2022 granting stay of the proceedings against the petitioner for a period of two years and further it was made clear that after expiry of two years, the said stay order would get automatically vacated and liberty was given to the respondents therein to continue the departmental proceedings and the said order was confirmed in Writ Appeal No.478 of 2023 with a liberty to the appellants therein to go ahead with the departmental enquiry against the petitioner in pursuance of the charge memo dated 28.08.2021. 14. It is trite law that mere pendency of departmental proceedings does not entitle the petitioner to seek quashing of the criminal proceedings, as departmental proceedings and criminal proceedings are different and distinct. 15. 14. It is trite law that mere pendency of departmental proceedings does not entitle the petitioner to seek quashing of the criminal proceedings, as departmental proceedings and criminal proceedings are different and distinct. 15. Insofar as the other contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has already handed over the entire case properties in all the crimes to one G.Sadaiah, Head Constable and he has not taken care of the same, hence, the petitioner has lodged a complaint on 19.08.2021 to take action against the Head Constable and the concerned Officer has not taken any action are concerned, whether the petitioner has handed over the case properties to his successors or not; and whether he misused the case properties and caused disappearance of evidence or not, are disputed questions of fact, the same cannot be adjudicated in the present criminal petition. Even according to the learned Special Public Prosecutor, entire investigation is completed and the Investigation Officer has submitted final report. The Department made a request to the Government for grant of sanction to file final report before the concerned Court to proceed with the matter against the petitioner and the same is pending. 16. It is settled principle that the power under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. to quash the First Information Report is to be exercised sparingly and with great caution, and only in the rarest of rare cases, where the allegations in the FIR, even if taken at their face value, do not disclose the commission of any offence. The Hon’ble Apex Court in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal , (1992) Supp (1) SCC 335 issued a note of caution that such extraordinary power cannot be invoked to stifle a legitimate investigation or to embark upon an inquiry into the truth or otherwise of the allegations. An FIR is not required to be an encyclopedia of all facts relating to the alleged offence. It is only intended to set the criminal law in motion and to enable the investigating agency to collect material to ascertain the truth of the allegations. An FIR is not required to be an encyclopaedia of all facts relating to the alleged offence. It is only intended to set the criminal law in motion and to enable the investigating agency to collect material to ascertain the truth of the allegations. An FIR is not required to be an encyclopaedia of all facts relating to the alleged offence. It is only intended to set the criminal law in motion and to enable the investigating agency to collect material to ascertain the truth of the allegations. The law does not require that all the ingredients of the offence must be spelled out in the FIR. As observed in Rajesh Bajaj v. State (NCT of Delhi), (1999) 3 SCC 259 the absence of detailed particulars or one or two ingredients does not justify quashing at the threshold if a factual foundation for the alleged offence exists. 17. For the foregoing reasons as well as the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court supra, this Court does not find any ground to quash the proceedings in FIR No.03/ACB-KNR/2022 of ACB Police Station, Karimnagar Range against the petitioner. 18. In the result, the criminal petition is dismissed. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous applications, if any, pending in this petition stand closed.