IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD Wednesday, October 12, 2011 Present: The Hon’ble Sri Justice B. Seshasayana Reddy Criminal Petition No. 2545 of 2010 Between: Yeligeti Sadanandam ..Petitioner and The State of AP and another …Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B. SESHASAYANA REDDY Criminal Petition No. 2545 of 2010 O r d e r: This petition has been taken out by the accused – Yeligeti Sadanandam in Cr.No. 38 of 2010 of Vemulavada P.S., Karimnagar District to quash the First Information Report (FIR) therein. 2. The petitioner worked as Manager of APCO Sales Emporium, Vemulawada. He applied for leave from 29-09-2009 onwards. The Central Office posted one M. Ramesh Babu as Manager in the place of the petitioner. He took charge from the petitioner and noticed deficit of stock to a tune of Rs.93,195.60. Reconciliation statement came to be prepared, which revealed that the petitioner transacted sales and realised an amount of Rs.69,786-10. He failed to remit the sale proceeds into the bank. A report came to be presented by the second respondent before the Station House Officer, Law & Order, Crime Branch Police Station, Vemulawada. Thereupon the Station House Officer registered a case against the petitioner in Cr.No. 38 of 2010 for the offences punishable under sections 420, 406 and 409 IPC. Hence, this petition by the accused in the said crime seeking the relief stated supra. 3. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the 1st Respondent-State and perused the material brought on record. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that initiation of criminal proceedings against the petitioner without resorting to departmental action amounts to abuse of process of law and therefore the FIR in Cr.No. 38 of 2010 is liable to be quashed. 5. I have gone through the report presented by the second respondent before the Station House Officer, Law & Order, Crime Branch Police Station, Vemulawada. The reliever of the petitioner valued the stock and found that the petitioner transacted the sales and failed to remit the sale proceeds in the Bank. The amount misappropriated by the petitioner has been stated in the report. When specific accusations have been made against the petitioner and the amount misappropriated has been ascertained by referring to the sale transactions, it is not desirable to interdict the investigation in Cr.No. 38 of 2010 of Law & Order, Crime Branch Police Station, Vemulawada . 6. Accordingly the petition is dismissed. ____________________________ B. SESHASAYANA REDDY, J. October 12, 2011. *BVS