THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.KANTHA RAO Crl.P.No. 5099 of 2008 AND Crl.P.No. 4721 of 2008 Date:21-12-2010 Crl.P.No. 5099 of 2008 Between: B.V.Rami Reddy …Petitioner And K.V.V.Srinivas and another …Respondents Crl.P.No. 4721 of 2008 Between: K.R. Reddy …Petitioner/A-3 And K.V.V.Srinivas and another …Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.KANTHA RAO Crl.P.No. 5099 of 2008 in Crl.P.No. 4721 of 2008 COMMON ORDER: These two criminal petitions are filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash all further proceedings in Crime No.135 of 2006 of Nampally Police Station, Hyderabad. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor representing the State. The brief facts necessary for considering the present criminal petitions are that some irregularities and acts of misappropriation have been allegedly committed by the office bearers of the Special Protection Force, A.P. Employees Co-operative Credit Society Ltd., Hyderabad. The petitioners are the President and Secretary respectively at relevant time of the above mentioned society. A-4 is the treasurer of the society at relevant time when the acts of misappropriation came to the notice of the officials of the department. It is said that A-4 who was the treasurer at relevant time confessed his guilt and admitted before his successor-treasurer who is the first respondent that he alone misappropriated the amounts and he also undertook to repay the entire amount. But, actually, he deposited only an amount of Rs.13 lakhs. Whereas, huge amounts were in fact said to be misappropriated. On the request of the executive committee, inspection of the affairs and financial position of the society was conducted under Section 52 of the A.P. Co-operative Societies Act, 1964 and in the inspection report it was found that A-4 was the person responsible for the entire misappropriation. It is said that Divisional Co-operative Officer, Golkonda Division, Hyderabad also conducted enquiry independently and she also held A-4 (T.Seetharamulu), ex-treasurer misappropriated an amount of Rs.17,93,752/- and issued surcharge proceedings by her order dated 15.10.2007 in RC No.685/2006-B. Against the said order, A-4 filed C.T.A.No.133 of 2007 before the A.P. Co-operative Tribunal, Hyderabad and obtained stay order on condition of furnishing third party security for 50% of the surcharge amount and the said appeal is pending before the learned Tribunal. The grievance of the petitioners is that in the enquiries made under the provisions of A.P. Co-operative Societies Act, the Divisional Co-operative Officer, Golkonda Division, Hyderabad ultimately found A-4 guilty of misappropriation and the prosecution shall only be launched against A-4, but not against other office bearers, but now on the report lodged by the first respondent, the police included the petitioners and some other office bearers in Crime No.133 of 2006 and have been investigating into the alleged charges of misappropriation. It has been submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners that since A-4 himself admitted his guilt and took the responsibility of paying the entire amount which was found to be misappropriated, the prosecution can be launched only against him as per the provisions of the Co-operative Societies Act and the police have no powers to investigate against the petitioners. Considering the sequence of events which led to finding A-4 guilty of misappropriation in surcharge proceedings and his prosecution in pursuance thereof, I am of the considered view that the first respondent or the present executive committee of the society is not precluded from causing investigation into the entire episode, if according to them, some other office bearers were also indulged in the acts of misappropriation. It is highly difficult to accede to the contention of the learned counsel that the police have no power to investigate into the alleged offence to find out as to whether the complicity of the petitioners is also there in the offence alleged. Since the matter is under investigation which cannot be said to be illegal, I am not inclined to quash the proceedings relating to investigation in Crime No.135 of 2006 of Nampally Police Station, Hyderabad. The criminal petitions, therefore being devoid of merit, are dismissed. _______________ R.KANTHA RAO, J Date:21.12.2010 Ccm THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.KANTHA RAO Crl.P.No. 5099 of 2008 AND Crl.P.No. 4721 of 2008 Date:21-12-2010