HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N. RAVI SHANKAR CRIMINAL PETITION No.10255 of 2010 ORDER:- The petitioner herein is shown as accused in Crime No.332/2009 of Devanpally Police Station. He filed this petition under S.482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C) to quash the aforesaid FIR. That FIR is registered for offences punishable under Ss.420 and 465 IPC. 2. The point therefore that arises for determination in this petition is whether there are grounds to quash the aforesaid FIR. 3. In the paper book filed by the petitioner’s counsel, a copy of the FIR is filed. At the relevant time the petitioner was working as a Reader in Economics in the Government Degree College, Kamareddy in Nizamabad district. The FIR which is in the form of a letter dated 26.10.2009 is said to have been given by one Dr.B.Mallesham the Principal of Government Degree College, Kamareddy. The allegations in the FIR are that to meet the expenditure of the District Flying Squad of Nizamabad during the annual examination of Osmania University held in March/April 2009, the Osmania University authorities have sent two demand drafts one dated 23.04.2009 for Rs.30,000/- and the other dated 30.04.2009 for Rs.22,570/- and the said demand drafts were received and encashed and the amounts were spent by the petitioner. 4. The further allegations in the FIR show that subsequently when the de facto complainant B.Mallesham asked the petitioner to submit the vouchers he has shown settlement register by hand from the Deputy Registrar, Bill Section of the Osmania University. T h e de facto complainant’s version is that no bill was ever submitted by his office and the signatures and stamps put on the bill are all fake. The accusation made in the FIR is that that the relevant documents submitted to the Osmania University in connection with the above expenditure contains false certificates and fake stamps of the Government Degree College, Kamareddy. With the above allegations in the FIR the de facto complainant/principal requested to initiate action against the petitioner. The said FIR was registered for the aforesaid offences. 5. The plea of the petitioner is that at the relevant time in the absence of the Principal of the Government Degree College, Kamareddy, he has on behalf of the Principal signed bills and forwarded the same to the Osmania University for the bills section for the above total amount of Rs.52,270/- towards car hire charges for the Flying Squad, Nizamabad district during the aforesaid annual examination and the university authorities have also approved the said bills for the above amount covered by the two demand drafts mentioned supra. He also says that after receipt of the two demand drafts they were deposited in the account of the Principal, Government Degree College, Kamareddy. His plea therefore is that there is no misappropriation. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner pointed out that the present principal of the Government Degree College, Kamareddy gave a frivolous complaint merely on suspicion and that no offences were committed and therefore the allegations in the FIR even if believed do not disclose any offence and consequently it should be quashed. 7. The learned public prosecutor on the other hand argued that the allegations in the FIR prima facie disclose offences for which the case was registered and that the complaint is given by a responsible person i.e. Principal of a Government Degree College and therefore the police are investigating the matter and consequently there is no ground to quash the FIR. 8. It may be noted that the de facto complainant is the Principal of the college in question while the petitioner at the relevant time was a Reader in Economics of the said college. Both can be said to be responsible officials. The version of the Principal is that some fake stamps and seals of the Principal of the Government Degree College, Kamareddy and the college itself were used and the vouchers were also not submitted and some false documents were sent to the university to show that the amounts have been utilised for the purpose for which they were sent. 9. It should be noted that the version of the principal may be correct or the version of the petitioner may be correct but this has to be ascertained by the concerned investigating officer after thoroughly investigating the matter to find out what actually happened. It can therefore be said that this is not a case where the allegations do not disclose any offence at all. It should be noted that if this Court now accept the version of the petitioner that would virtually amount to adjudication of the matter by this Court when investigation is still pending and this is not permissible in a petition under S.482 Cr.P.C. In these circumstances I am of the opinion that this is not a fit case for interference under S.482 Cr.P.C. 10. Parting with the matter it is clear that having registered the case the police may think of arresting the petitioner who is also said to be responsible officer. This Court cannot however place any fetters on the power of the police in arresting the persons. At the same time, in a situation like this I am of the opinion that police should not take a hasty action and they are instructed to keep in mind S.41 Cr.P.C as it stands now and exercise their discretion only in case the arrest of the petitioner is found essential to carry on their investigation. With these observations this petition is dismissed. ______________________ N. RAVI SHANKAR, J 26th April 2011 CVRK