HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY CRIMINAL PETITION No.5818 OF 2008 Date: 31-03-2011 Between: S. Kameswara Rao. --- Petitioner/ A-12. And State of A.P. Rep. by Public prosecutor, High Court, Hyderabad. --- Respondent. This Court made the following : HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY CRIMINAL PETITION No.5818 OF 2008 ORDER: This Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioner/Accused No.12 under Section 482 Cr.P.C., seeking to quash proceedings in C.C. No.368 of 2005 on the file of Judicial Magistrate of First Class Court, Chodavaram, on the ground that this Court in Writ Petition No.27774 of 2005 filed under Article 226 of the constitution of India, quashed the corresponding F.I.R. No.30 of 2004 on the file of Kothakota police station against 11 accused concerned in the same Crime number. 2. Whereas the petitioner is the accused No.12 and the respondent is the State in the Criminal Petition, for the sake of convenience the parties hereinafter will be referred as arrayed in the Calendar Case. 3. The facts which arise for consideration are : An enquiry was ordered under section 51 of the A.P. Co- operative Societies Act, 1964 (for short, ‘the Act’) against the accused i.e. the petitioner i.e. the Secretary Ex. President and Managing Committee of Kothakota Primary Agricultural Co-operative Society, Visakhapatnam District (For short, ‘the Society’) and surcharge proceedings were also initiated against them but subsequently the surcharge proceedings were dropped holding that there was no material evidence to the effect that the accused caused deficiency to the assets of the Society which became final, but still a report was given to the concerned police to prosecute the accused for offences punishable under sections 403, 406, 408, 417, 420, 465 and 477 I.P.C. under various counts with reference to the same subject matter whereas consequently the 11 accused filed the Writ Petition for quashing the proceedings and considering the relevant factors it was observed by this court therein that when once the surcharge proceedings were closed holding that there was no material against the accused concerned, the question of further filing of the Criminal Report would not arise at all and therefore the initiation of proceedings on the same basis was bad and accordingly, the Writ Petition was disposed of. 4. It is conceded by the learned public prosecutor that when the present Criminal Petition is filed on the same footing hence the same observations made by this Court hold good here. 5. Therefore under the circumstances narrated above, when there is no question of prosecuting the accused for the alleged offence when once the surcharge proceedings were closed the Calendar Case is not tenable against the petitioner also. In the result, the Criminal Petition is allowed and the proceedings in C.C. No.368 of 2005 on the file of Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Chodavaram, are quashed. __________________________ G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY, J Dated:31-03-2011. Dsh.