HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA CRIMINAL PETITION No. 2761 OF 2009 DATED 19TH October, 2011. BETWEEN Mandapalli Bhaskar Rao …….Petitioner and Dasari Sudarsanam and anr …… Respondents HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA CRIMINAL PETITION No. 2761 OF 2009 ORDER: The petitioner herein, who is A.2, invoked the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking to quash crime No. 85 of 2008 registered against him on the file of the Station House Officer, Police Station, Buttaigudem, W.G. District, for the offences punishable under Sections 409, 420, 477 (A) r/w 34 IPC. The first respondent lodged a report on 12.12.2008 with the second respondent stating that the petitioner and others are responsible for misappropriating the Government funds while recommending the applications of bogus ST candidates for sanction of Post Matric Scholarships without due and proper verification. On coming to know the same, the then District Collector, West Godavari District after thorough enquiry with five Senior Tahsildars, submitted a detailed report to the Commissioner of Tribal Welfare, AP., under his letter dated 2.12.2006. He also addressed other authorities regarding the irregularities committed in drawl and disbursement of Post Matric Scholarships. Even the Superintendent of Police, Vigilance and Enforcement Department, Rajhmundry wing conducted an enquiry and submitted report to the Principal Secretary, Tribal Welfare Department, who communicated the same to the Director of Tribal Welfare, A.P. Hyderabad and also GAD (V&E) Department of the Government. The Vigilance and Enforcement Department while submitting the report, made certain recommendations, mentioning the names of the officers who were responsible for the misappropriation of the Government funds. After getting necessary sanction, the first respondent lodged the aforesaid complaint with the second respondent police. In the meanwhile, the petitioner was kept under suspension. The allegation made in the aforesaid complaint against the petitioner in brief is that he was responsible for recommending the applications of 40 bogus ST students of Srinivas ITC Kovvur for sanction of Post Matric Scholarships without due and proper verification and thereby caused misappropriation to the tune of Rs.9,78,750/- of the Government funds, and also for recommending the applications of 20 bogus ST students of Satyam Para Medical Sciences, Marteu without due and proper verification and thereby caused temporary misappropriation to the tune of Rs.4,50,000/- of the Government funds. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that necessary sanction as required under Section 197 Cr.P.C. has not been taken to prosecute the petitioner; and that the petitioner is only a forwarding authority, whereas the District Welfare Officer is the verifying authority, and as such the petitioner has forwarded the applications and he cannot therefore be made a scapegoat for the alleged misappropriation of the Government funds; and that immediately after the news item, on verification, the petitioner found that certain amounts were not disbursed and he advised the concerned authorities of the colleges to remit the un- disbursed amounts to Government account forthwith and thereby he in fact saved the government funds. The learned Counsel for the petitioner asserted that the role of the petitioner is very limited and he acted as per the directions of the District Tribal Officer, who is A.1 and is answerable to the so called alleged misappropriation of the Government funds. Heard both sides. Perused the material on record carefully. While dealing with a petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, where the prayer is to quash the complaint, this Court is only to read the complaint and the material annexed there with and see as to whether on the basis of the allegations made therein the alleged offence has been committed. This Court would therefore see whether on taking the allegations and the complaint as they are, without adding anything thereto or subtracting anything thereform, the alleged offence is made out. If an offence is made out, then this Court would not be justified in quashing the proceedings pending before the trial Court. It is also well established that the powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure should be used only very sparingly to prevent abuse of the process of the Court. In the case on hand, the then District Collector after making thorough enquiry with the five senior Tahsildars found that the petitioner along with others were responsible for the alleged misappropriation of the Government funds. Even the Vigilance and Enforcement Department after seizure of all the records and a thorough enquiry confirmed the same and recommended the concerned authorities to take appropriate disciplinary action. That being so, it is for the trial Court to adjudicate and decide as to whether the allegations made against the petitioner are true or otherwise after a full-fledged trial and basing upon the material placed on record. The petitioner was kept under suspension considering the seriousness of the allegations levelled against him. Trite to State, the First Information Report is only an initiation to move the machinery and to investigate into a cognizable offence and, therefore, while exercising the power and deciding whether the investigation itself should be quashed, utmost care should be taken by the Court and at that stage, it is not possible for the Court to sift the evidence or to weigh the materials and then come to the conclusion one way or the other. Having heard the learned Counsel and after perusing the material on record, it would be noticeable that specific and serious allegations of misappropriation of the government funds are levelled against the petitioner. Whether the petitioner has played his part of role or not in the misappropriation of the Government funds; and whether the petitioner acted only according to the directions of the District Tribal Officer (A.1) etc., would only be known after a full fledged trial and the same cannot be gone into in this petition. While exercising jurisdiction under S. 482 of the Cr.P.C. this Court would not embark upon a roving enquiry to find out as to whether the allegations in question are true or otherwise; or whether on a reasonable appreciation the accusations would not be sustained. That is the function of the trial Judge. Judicial process should not be an instrument of oppression, or needless harassment. These aspects can as well be agitated by the petitioner before the trial Court by way of their defence. By no stretch of imagination, it can be said that the allegations made in the First Information Report, if taken at its face value and if accepted in its entirety, do not even prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the petitioner. With regard to the contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner that necessary sanction as required under Section 197 Cr.P.C. was not obtained from the Government to prosecute the petitioner, the law is well settled on this aspect that the question of sanction under Section 197 Cr.P.C. can be raised at any time after the cognizance of offence; may be immediately after cognizance or framing of charge or even at the time of conclusion of trial and after conviction as well. Further more, there may be cases where the question as to whether the sanction was required to be obtained or not would not be possible to be determined unless some evidence is taken and in such an event the said question may have to be considered even after the witnesses are examined. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case on hand and in view of the settled law, it is not necessary for this Court to go into the that aspect at this juncture. This Court may observe that during the course of trial, the trial Court shall examine the question and deal with the same in accordance with law. It is well settled that when a complaint is lodged at the police station and an offence is registered, the mala fides of the informant would be of secondary importance at that stage. It is the material collected during the investigation and evidence led in Court which decides the fate of the accused person. The allegations of mala fides against the informant are of no consequence and cannot by themselves be the basis for quashing the proceedings For the foregoing discussion and keeping in mind the nature of allegations made against the petitioner which are under investigation, it would not be proper for this Court to thwart the investigation at the threshold. Thus I find that there are no valid and justifiable grounds to exercise the power of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the aforesaid crime. The Criminal Petition is accordingly dismissed. --------------------------------------------- JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA Dated 19TH October, 2011. Msnro