ORDER : HARINATH.N, J. 1. The present criminal petition is filed seeking to quash CC 1107 of 2023 on the file of V Additional Junior Civil Judge – Cum - V Additional Metropolitan Magistrate Vijaywada. The petitioner is arraigned as accused number 17 in the said case for the alleged offenses under Section 120B. 409, 420, 468, 471, 477A of IPC. 2. As per the complaint filed by the respondent, the first accused enter into a criminal conspiracy with private persons and caused wrongful loss and corresponding wrongful gain to themselves by misusing his official position by making premature closure of government deposits of Andhra Pradesh Building and other Construction workers welfare board Hyderabad and misappropriated funds of Rs.12,00,00,000. 3. It is the case for the prosecution that accused Nos.1 to 30 entered into criminal conspiracy during the period March 2014 to June 2015 with an intention to cheat Syndicate Bank SME Branch, Kadapa and in pursuance of the said conspiracy, the 1 st accused has misused his official position by closing the deposits of Andhra Pradesh Building and other Construction Welfare Workers, Hyderabad prematurely and transferring the funds to the accounts of third parties. The accused Nos. 2 and 5 have been instrumental in transfer of an amount of Rs.12,00,00,000/- into various accounts and thereafter the said amounts were shared amounts the accused. 4. As per the charge sheet filed by the 2 nd respondent the first accused had transferred amounts to the second accused and the 5 th accused was instrumental in obtaining an open offer letter from the first accused with regard to the interest rate on domestic term deposit of Rs.10,00,00,000 and above. It is also stated that the 5 th accused has introduced himself as Manager of Syndicate Bank, Kadapa to the Secretary and CEO of Andhra Pradesh building and other construction workers welfare board and submitted the offer letter issued by accused number one and sought deposits. The Secretary and CEO accepted the proposal of the 5 th accused and thereafter prepared a note to invest Rs.7,00,00,000/- with Syndicate Bank SME branch, Kadapa and subsequently transferred the same for fixed deposits. The Secretary and CEO accepted the proposal of the 5 th accused and thereafter prepared a note to invest Rs.7,00,00,000/- with Syndicate Bank SME branch, Kadapa and subsequently transferred the same for fixed deposits. It is the case of the prosecution that the accused number 2 had handed over the original fixed deposit receipt to accused number 5 at Hyderabad for making a fake FDR in the name of AP Building and other construction workers welfare board (hereinafter be referred as ‘welfare board’). A fake FDR was generated by the 5 th accused and he submitted the fake FDR with the with the welfare board. 5. It is also stated in the charge sheet that the first accused issued another photocopy of the letter intimating the interest rate on domestic term deposits of Rs.10,00,00,000/- and above to accused number 5. The accused number five thereafter got another depot deposit of Rs.5,00,00,000 from the welfare board. The 5 th accused again got fake FDR on the name of welfare board and submitted the fake FDR for record purposes to the welfare board. 6. These deposits were prematurely closed by furnishing the original FDR receipts with the bank. The 5 th accused had submitted fake FDR receipts with the welfare board for their records and retained the original FD receipts which were misused by the 5 th accused. The first accused misused his position and transferred the prematurely closed fixed deposits amount. Thus, the accused have committed offences charged under Section 120B. 409, 420, 468, 471, 477-A of IPC. 7. It is also stated in the charge sheet that the second accused had withdrawn amount of Rs.1,69,00,000/- from the amounts deposited into the account of universal minerals and chemicals and subsequently the said amount was shared amongst accused Nos.1 to 3 and 5. The charge sheet also details the manner in which the amounts were transferred from one account to the other account and how the other accused had allegedly withdrawn the amounts. 8. In so far as the role of the petitioner is concerned it is stated in the charge sheet that the accused No.6 issued RTGS application on 30.05.2014 for transfer of an amount of Rs.38,48,350/- from his account to the account of the petitioner. 8. In so far as the role of the petitioner is concerned it is stated in the charge sheet that the accused No.6 issued RTGS application on 30.05.2014 for transfer of an amount of Rs.38,48,350/- from his account to the account of the petitioner. It is stated in the charge sheet that the petitioner invested an amount of Rs.1,10,00,000 in mutual funds of DSP Black Rock Mutual Fund vide check bearing number 007854, dated 03.06.2014. It is also stated that the petitioner and accused number 5 and 6 have shared the said amount. 9. The other averments of the charge sheet do not relate to the petitioner as such they may not be relevant for the purpose of deciding this case. The role of the petitioner as per the charge sheet is that amounts were transferred to the accounts of the petitioner and that the petitioner invested those amounts or part of those amounts in mutual funds and subsequently it is alleged that the petitioner shared the amount with accused number 5 and 6. 10. The learned Senior Counsel Sri O.Manohar Reddy appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is falsely implicated in this case. It is submitted that the allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner is said to have received an amount of Rs 38,48,350 from the account of the accused no 16 towards the aviation services rendered by the petitioner. 11. It is submitted that except for the allegation that the amounts were transferred to the account of the petitioner towards the aviation services of the petitioner, the role of the petitioner insofar as commission of the alleged offences under Section 406, 409, 420, 468, 471, 477. A of IPC cannot be made applicable to the petitioner herein. It is further submitted by the Learned Senior Counsel that the petitioner company is a market leader in providing charter services to corporates and others since the year 1976. It is also submitted by the Learned Senior Counsel that the petitioner was catering to the aviation services of one Shaurya Aviation Private Limited and entered into a contract with them. The clients of Shaurya Aviation Private Limited were making direct payments to the petitioner company, against the invoices raised for the services rendered. It is also submitted that the petitioner had only rendered aviation services to its clients and has charged them by raising invoices. The clients of Shaurya Aviation Private Limited were making direct payments to the petitioner company, against the invoices raised for the services rendered. It is also submitted that the petitioner had only rendered aviation services to its clients and has charged them by raising invoices. The petitioner cannot be considered as a part of the conspiracy when the petitioner received monies for the aviation services. 12. On these grounds, the petitioner cannot be arraigned as an accused along with others for the alleged offences with which the petitioner has no connection either directly or indirectly or even remotely. 13. It is also submitted by the Learned Senior Counsel that the petitioner has furnished all the details relating to the Contract which the petitioner had with Shaurya Aviation, the documents of Airport Authority of India relating to the flights and their invoices, refuelling invoices, flight manifesto, flight record book, payment and correspondence with regarding outstanding dues and all the other related issues to the investigating officer under acknowledgement. Despite providing all details, the investigating officer has erred in arraigning the petitioner as an accused. 14. It is submitted that a vague and passing allegation is made in the charge sheet that the petitioner has invested an amount of Rs 1,10,00,000/- in mutual funds on 03.06.2014 and that thereafter the amounts were shared amongst Accused 5, 6 and the petitioner. The Learned Senior Counsel would also submit that the petitioner cannot be found fault with for dealing with the income generated out of business in the manner the petitioner thought fit to deal with. The investment of the petitioner in mutual funds from and out of the income generated/revenue generated from the business conducted by the petitioner cannot become a ground for arraying the petitioner as an accused. It is also submitted that there is absolutely no material for the investigating officer to arraign the petitioner as an accused. It is also submitted that in absence of any evidence and in absence of any statement pointing the involvement of the petitioner in the commission of alleged offence, the petitioner cannot be arraigned as an accused and continuation of criminal proceedings against the petitioner is manifestly illegal and as such the case against the petitioner ought to be quashed. 15. It is also submitted that in absence of any evidence and in absence of any statement pointing the involvement of the petitioner in the commission of alleged offence, the petitioner cannot be arraigned as an accused and continuation of criminal proceedings against the petitioner is manifestly illegal and as such the case against the petitioner ought to be quashed. 15. The learned standing counsel appearing for the respondent submits that there are specific allegations against the petitioner and that all the accused are charged of offences under Section 120B of IPC. As such, the involvement or otherwise of the petitioner can be ascertained after a full- fledged trial. It is also submitted that the investigating officer after completion of investigation has filed a charge sheet after recording the statements of as many as 38 witnesses. It is further submitted by the Learned Standing Counsel for the respondent that the invoices submitted by the petitioner to the investigating officer are all after 30.05.2014. As such, they cannot be relied upon for the purpose of this case. The Learned Standing Counsel prays for dismissing the quash petition. 16. The Learned Standing Counsel also submits that a detailed counter is filed on behalf of the respondents and that the allegation against the petitioner of investing in mutual funds and thereafter sharing the amounts with accused Nos. 5 & 6 are specifically made in the Charge Sheet. It is also submitted that the respondents in their counter have denied the claim of the petitioner and submit that the Case against the petitioner cannot be quashed at this stage. 17. In reply, the Learned Senior Counsel submits that in the aviation industry booking of aircrafts well in advance by making advance payment is an existing norm. It is submitted that all the documents relating to the bookings made, flights arranged, fuel invoices etc were submitted to the Investigating officer. However, they do not find place in the charge sheet or they are not even referred to by any of the witness. It is submitted that there is absolutely no document or any statement from any of the listed witnesses who speak about involvement of the petitioner in the commission of the alleged crime in connivance with the others in crime. It is submitted that there is absolutely no document or any statement from any of the listed witnesses who speak about involvement of the petitioner in the commission of the alleged crime in connivance with the others in crime. It is submitted that merely conducting of business and receiving payments for the services rendered cannot make the petitioner liable for criminal prosecution for alleged offences committed by some other accused. It is also submitted in reply that the petitioner is seeking quashing of CC 1107 of 2023 not the FIR as stated at Para 7 of the counter filed by the respondent. 18. Heard the Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner and the Learned Standing Counsel for the respondent. Perused the record. 19. The petitioner is in the private aviation business for almost the last 50 years. The petitioner is facing prosecution for the alleged offences under section 120 B, 409, 468, 471, 477-A of IPC. Section 409 of IPC cannot be made applicable to the petitioner. The role of the petitioner for attracting the provisions of section 468,471, 477 A of IPC has to be ascertained by the investigating officer during the course of his investigation. Perused the entire record, the investigating officer has recorded the statements of witnesses who are either employees of the banks or the officers relating to the welfare board, Hyderabad. The investigating officer has recorded the statements of four other witnesses who are unconnected with the petitioner, they also do not support the version of the prosecution linking the petitioner to the crime. 20. The investigating officer has curiously not recorded the statements of any of the witnesses from either the Airport Authority of India or the statements of any witnesses who maintained the flight record book or the flight manifesto or the other witnesses relating to the oil companies who raised the fuel bills on the petitioner. 21. If the investigating officer disbelieved the documents submitted by the petitioner and had reasons to believe that the documents were generated for escaping from the law, the Investigating officer ought to have recorded the statements of the concerned witnesses to establish that the documents submitted by the petitioner were dis- believable/fabricated. None of the provisions of law which the accused are charged of having committed can be attributed to the acts of the petitioner with the available material on record. 22. None of the provisions of law which the accused are charged of having committed can be attributed to the acts of the petitioner with the available material on record. 22. Admittedly and evidently the petitioner has no role in either securing of deposits from the welfare board. Similarly the petitioner has no role in creation of the fake FDR receipts. Role of the petitioner in pre-closing the deposits and transferring the amounts into different accounts is also evidently not available on record. The allegation relating to the receipt of payments to the petitioners account from the account of the accused number 16 alone cannot constitute an offence. Investing the said amount and other amounts in a mutual fund also cannot constitute an offence. The investigating officer could not establish the allegation of sharing of money with Accused Nos.5 and 6 by the petitioner in the charge sheet. 23. Listed witness 1 to 4 are the officers of Syndicate Bank. Listed witness 5 and 6 are the employees of the welfare board, Hyderabad. Listed witness 7 to 9 are the employees of Syndicate Bank, listed witness number 10 is the Assistant General Manager of Indian Bank, listed witness No.11 is the branch manager of State Bank of Mysore listed, Listed Witness number 12 and 13 are the Managers the Corporation Bank. Listed witness number 14, 21, 26, 35, 36, 37 and 38 are other witnesses unrelated tot eh bank and also unrelated to the Airport Authority of India or the Oil Companies, rest of all others are officers of various banks. On careful perusal of all the listed witnesses and their statements recorded by the investigating officer none of the witnesses have spoken about the involvement of the petitioner in the Commission of the alleged offenses. Evidently the investigating officer has not conducted investigation on the veracity of the documents submitted by the petitioner to the investigating officer along with a covering letter dated 09.08.2016. 24. In absence of any cogent evidence or any other form of evidence which could prima-facie point the finger of suspicion towards the petitioner, continuation of the criminal proceedings against the petitioner would have to be considered as illegal. 25. 24. In absence of any cogent evidence or any other form of evidence which could prima-facie point the finger of suspicion towards the petitioner, continuation of the criminal proceedings against the petitioner would have to be considered as illegal. 25. In absence of any evidence, a mere vague statement in the charge sheet against the petitioner without any corroborative evidence either in the form of a document or in the form of a statement recorded by the investigating officer continuation of the criminal proceedings against the petitioner would only cause unwanted harassment to the petitioner. 26. In absence of any material to prima facie link the petitioner with the commission of the alleged offences, this court is of the considered view that the petition deserves to be allowed and the proceedings against the petitioner deserve to be quashed. 27. Accordingly, criminal petition is allowed and CC.No.1107 of 2023 on the file of V Additional Junior Civil Judge – Cum – V Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada against the petitioner is hereby quashed. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.