IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD TUESDAY, THE SIXTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT: THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL PETITION No.3074 of 2010 Between: Chalasani Koteswara Rao …Petitioner AND The State of A.P. …Respondent The Court made the following THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL PETITION No.3074 of 2010 ORDER: This petition is ﬁled by the accused for quashing FIR in Crime No.51 of 2010 of Arundalpet (Law and Order) Police Station, Guntur, relating to offences punishable under Sections 420 and 406 IPC. The petitioner was previously working as branch manager in “Neti Dinapatrika Surya” which is a daily newspaper being published from Guntur. The present report was given by the ﬁrst respondent who is the present branch manager of the same paper. It is alleged that the petitioner collected huge amounts to the tune of Rs.14,87,061/- from various reporters of the paper towards advertisement charges without passing any receipts. After the ﬁrst respondent took charge in the oﬃce, when he veriﬁed the records, he found that huge amount is due to the paper. When he enquired the reporters, they gave statements to the eﬀect that they made all the payments to the petitioner / accused. Therefore, the ﬁrst respondent gave report to the police against the petitioner. It is contended by the petitioner’s counsel that the ﬁrst respondent gave report to the police in his personal capacity and not on behalf of SPR Publications which is publishing the paper. The ﬁrst respondent signed on the report describing him as branch manager of the paper at Guntur. He gave his oﬃce address as well as residential address and designation. Hence, it cannot be concluded that the report was given by the ﬁrst respondent in his individual capacity or personal capacity. He gave the report as branch manager of the paper being published by SPR Publications. Oﬃce address of SPR Publications is also disclosed in the report. Therefore, I do not ﬁnd any irregularity much less any illegality in the report given by the ﬁrst respondent to the police. Insofar as merits of the case are concerned, it is for the police to investigate into the allegations and come to a conclusion basing on evidence to be collected by the police during investigation. I do not ﬁnd any valid or legal reasons to stall proceedings in this case in which huge amount of about Rs.15 lakhs is stated to have been misappropriated. Hence, the Criminal Petition is dismissed. ______________________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU, J April 06, 2010 Bvv