HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL PETITION No.3579 OF 2006 Date: 31.12.2009 Between: Kommi Prameela Devi and others. …..Petitioners And: State of A.P., rep. By its Public Prosecutor and others. …..Respondents. HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL PETITION No.3579 of 2006 ORDER: This petition is filed by the accused Nos.4 to 7 under Section 482 Cr.P.C for quashing proceedings in C.C. No.197 of 2004 on the file of Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Atmakur in Crime No.15 of 2002 of Atmakur Police Station relating to offences punishable under Sections 403, 409, 411, 468, 120-B/34 I.P.C and Section 79(1)(f)& (h)/79(3)(i)&(ii) and 83-B(d) of Andhra Pradesh Co-operative Societies Act. 2) A-1 was chairman of the Atmakur Rural Electric Co-operative Society Limited (in short, RECO), of which A-9 is Managing Director. A-2 is stated to be former member of legislative assembly, Atmakur constituency. A-3 is brother of A-2. A-4 is wife, A-5 is son and A-7 is daughter of A-2. A-6 is wife of A-3. A-8 is stated to be an associate of A-2 and A-3. It is alleged that lands in S.Nos.193, 215, 218, 204/2, 217A, 219, 197/1, 218, 203, 219, 217, 162/3, 196/O, 162/1, 195, 203 and 161/1 of Pelleru village and its hamlet Pullaneelapalli village belong to A-2 to A-8 as per pattas and that cultivation in those lands is booked in their names and that they have undertaken aqua culture in those lands. It is further alleged that A-2 to A-8 were in need of transformer for their aqua ponds and entered into conspiracy with A-1 and A-9 to obtain transformer belonging to RECO for utilising the same for their own use and obtained transformer bearing No.100-SE-13 which is property of RECO and removed the transformer out of area of operation of RECO and have been in possession of the same which is misappropriated property in respect of which criminal breach of trust was committed by A-1 to A-9. Even though pilferage of electrical energy was also alleged against A-2 to A-8, there is no dispute that Crime Nos.33 to 35 of 2002 for electrical power pilferage were compounded. It is further alleged that A-9 gave report to the police concealing his part in the conspiracy and that during investigation, the investigating officer seized stolen property i.e., transformer bearing No.100-SE-13 on ridge of fields of A- 2 to A-8 under cover of mediators’ report in presence of mediators. It is further alleged that in the meanwhile, in pursuance of conspiracy of A- 1 to A-9, A-2 prepared two false documents with ante-dates as if one of them was given to A-1 on 14.08.2001 requesting him to deliver the transformer and another letter dated 20.02.2002 requesting A-1 to take back the transformer and that A-9 endorsed on both the said letters to create a make believe story. 3) During investigation, A-1 to A-6 and A-8 either surrendered in Court or were arrested. A-7 and A-9 are shown to be absconding. It is stated by the petitioner’s counsel that A-7 is out of India since time of her marriage and that she could not have any direct participation in the offence. It is further contended that A-2 to A-7 are either women folk or children in family of A-2 and A-3 and that they could not have any participation in the alleged offences or any management of aqua ponds in their lands and that due to political rivalry, false case was foisted against A-2 and all his family members. Simply because family members including women are arrayed as accused in this case, one cannot jump to the conclusion, at this stage, that the prosecution is motivated. According to the prosecution, it is A-2 to A-8 who are pattadars of lands in which aqua ponds are being maintained and it is for purpose of their aqua ponds, criminal misappropriation and criminal breach of trust were committed by installing electric transformer which is property of RECO. Ultimately it is A-2 to A-8 who are beneficiaries in the transaction. Further, as per prosecution case, the entire offences were committed by the other accused in collusion and in conspiracy with A-2 to A-8. At this stage, this Court cannot stall criminal prosecution as against the petitioners/A-4 to A-7. It is for the lower Court to decide complicity of the petitioners/A-4 to A-7 in the alleged offences and come to a conclusion basing on evidence to be let in by the prosecution as well as the defence, if any. I do not find any valid and legal reasons to quash proceedings in the pending case in the lower Court, in this petition. 4) In the result, the petition is dismissed. _____________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU, J December 31, 2009 KSH