IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MS JUSTICE G.ROHINI WRIT PETITION NO : 18162 of 2002 Between: A.P.State Financial Corporation Rep By Its Senior Branch Manager 52-14-77/1, New Rebapuvani Palem, Near Bullaiah College, Visakhapatnam-530 013. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 State of A.P., Rep By Its Public Prosecutor II Metropolitian Magitrate, Visakhapatnam. 2 Mahanthy Papa Rao S/o Late Gangayya R/o City View Apartments-10, Ramnagar, Visakhapatnam. 3 Mahanthi Sri Ramamurthy S/o Ramamurthy A.P.Financial Corporation, Visakhapatnam, R/o M.V.P.Colony, Sector 3, Plot No.116, Visakhapatnam. 4 Tankala Janardha Subudi S/o Suryanarayana R/o Tekkavali Village, Tekkali Mandal, Srikakulam Dist. .....RESPONDENT(S) Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to to issue an appropriate Writ, Order or Direction, especially a Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 1st Respondent herein in initiating the prosecution of the official of the petitioner Corporation, the 3rd Respondent herein as illegal, and consquently set aside the Criminal Complaint filed in C.C. No.673/1999 on the file of the II Metropolitan Magistrate, Visakhapatnam and pass. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.SREEMANNARAYANA VATTIKUTI Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR HOME The Court made the following : THE HON’BLE MS JUSTICE G.ROHINI W.P.NO.18162 of 2002 ORDER The Andhra Pradesh State Financial Corporation is the petitioner in this writ petition, which is filed to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.673 of 1999 on the file of the Court of the II Metropolitan Magistrate, Visakhapatnam initiated against the third respondent herein. It is not in dispute that the third respondent was an official of the petitioner-Corporation having worked as Branch Manager at Visakhapatnam from 06-0-71995 to 14-09-1998. On a private complaint lodged by the fourth respondent before the Court of the II Metropolitan Magistrate, Visakhapatnam on 29-09-1995 making allegations against the second respondent herein that he committed breach of trust and forgery to receive money from the Corporation in the name of the complainant, the matter was referred to police for investigation. Since the investigation revealed the involvement of the third respondent herein-an official of the petitioner-Corporation, he was also arrayed as accused No.2 and accordingly a charge sheet was filed on 08-03-2000 against both the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 408, 409, 417, 420, 465, 468, 469 and 120-B of IPC. Pursuant thereto CC No.673 of 1999 has been registered. Pending the proceedings, the 3rd respondent herein/Accused No.2 filed Crl.M.P.No.4343 of 2001 under Section.239 Cr.P.C with a prayer to discharge him on the ground that the sanction of the Government as required under Section.197 Cr.P.C. was not obtained before filing the charge sheet. It was also contended that the defacto complainant/4th respondent herein did not execute the mortgage deed and no case was made out to show that the Accused No.2 was involved in fabricating the documents and that the charge sheet was vague as to the specific involvement of A-2. After hearing both the parties the learned II Metropolitan Magistrate, Visakhapatnam by order dated.20-11-2001 dismissed Crl.M.P.No.4343 of 2001 holding that the sanction under Section.197 Cr.P.C. was not necessary since the collusion alleged against Accused No.2 was not in discharge of his official duties. It is also held that since the question whether there was any involvement of the petitioner in the alleged offence cannot be decided at the preliminary stage, on that ground he was not entitled for discharge. Aggrieved by the said order, the 3rd respondent/A-2 filed Criminal Revision Petition No.12/2002 before the Court of Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Visakhapatnam. By order dated.06-06-2002 the revision petition was dismissed confirming the order of the learned Magistrate. Thereafter the present writ petition came to be filed by the Corporation on 29.07.2002 seeking a Mandamus declaring the action of the 1st respondent in initiating prosecution against the 3rd respondent who is the official of the Corporation as illegal and consequently to set aside the criminal complaint in C.C.No.673 of 1999 on the file of the court of II Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Visakhapatnam. It is primarily contended on behalf of the Corporation that in the absence of sanction under Section.197 Cr.P.C the prosecution against the 3rd respondent should not have been commenced or proceeded with. It is also pleaded that the 3rd respondent ceased to be an employee of Corporation by virtue of his retirement and that the 4th respondent/complainant closed the loan account with the petitioner- Corporation on 14-05-2002 under OTS Scheme and consequently O.S.No.466 of 1995 filed by the 4th respondent was also dismissed as withdrawn by the Lok Adalat, Visakhapatnam on 15-06-2002 and therefore there is no further need or occasion to go through the trial in the criminal proceedings. Despite notice the 3rd respondent did not choose to appear. On behalf of the 2nd respondent though appearance has been entered, no counter-affidavit is filed. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the 1st respondent/State of A.P contending inter alia that the petitioner- Corporation has no locus standi to seek quashing of the proceedings in C.C.No.673 of 1999. I have heard the learned counsel for both the parties. As could be seen from the material on record pursuant to the private complaint lodged by the 4th respondent against the 2nd respondent herein the matter was referred to SHO, III Town P.S. Visakhapatnam city by the court of II Metropolitan Magistrate, Visakhapatnam for investigation. Accordingly Cr.No.326 of 1995 was registered on 31-10-1995 on the file of the III Town P.S. Visakhapatnam against the 2nd respondent herein and investigation was taken up. During the investigation it was found that the 2nd respondent herein conspired with the 3rd respondent herein who was working as Branch Manager of A.P. State Financial Corporation (writ petitioner) in creating a mortgage. Since it was prima facie established that the 3rd respondent herein was also involved in commission of the offence, a charge sheet was filed against the respondents 2 and 3 herein arraying them as Accused Nos.1 and 2. The same was registered as CC No.673 of 1999 on the file of the Court of II Metropolitan Magistrate, Visakhapatnam. It is also relevant to note that the 3rd respondent i.e., Accused No.2 in C.C.No.673 of 1999 filed Crl.M.P.No.4343 of 2001 seeking to discharge him under Section.239 Cr.P.C. and the same was dismissed by order dated.20-11-2001. The said order was confirmed on Revision by the Court of Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Visakhapatnam on 06-06-2002. Both the Courts negatived the contentions of the 3rd respondent/Accused No.2 that the prosecution against him without obtaining the sanction as required Under Section.197 Cr.P.C. is impermissible and the said orders have become final. Surprisingly the present writ petition is filed by the Corporation on behalf of the respondent No.3/Accused No.2 re-agitating the very same contentions which were not accepted by the Courts below. It is also relevant to note that the allegation of the complainant was that the 3rd respondent herein had colluded with the 2nd respondent and created the documents facilitating the 2nd respondent to obtain the loan. Whether the part allegedly played by the 3rd respondent was in discharge of his official duties or not can be decided only after full- fledged trial. As a matter of fact the learned Metropolitan Sessions Judge while dismissing the revision petition left it open to the 3rd respondent to canvass the said question at the time of final disposal of C.C.No.673 of 1999. In the circumstances the prosecution cannot be held to be bad at this stage merely on the ground of want of sanction under Section.197 Cr.P.C. So far as the other contention that the loan account of the 4th respondent with the petitioner-Corporation was closed and even the civil proceedings were withdrawn, I am of the opinion that the criminal prosecution cannot be set aside on any one of the above grounds. The law is well-settled that the extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India can be exercised by the Court to quash the criminal proceedings only in extraordinary circumstances either to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice where the allegations made in the complaint even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirely do not prima facie constitute any offence or to make out a case against the accused. None of the above said circumstances are made out in the present case. Hence the interference by this Court is not warranted on any ground what-so-ever and therefore the relief as prayed for, particularly at the instance of the Corporation, cannot be granted. Accordingly the writ petition is dismissed. However, this shall not preclude the 3rd respondent to challenge the proceedings in C.C.No.673 of 1999 by working out the appropriate remedy as available under law. No costs. _____________ G.ROHINI,J 25th FEBRUARY 2009 KLP/*TSNR