HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY CRIMINAL PETITION No:7232 OF 2007 Dated: 23.12.2010 Between: B. Janaki Rao ..Petitioner And 1. The Sub Inspector of Police, I town P.S., and another. .. Respondents. This Court made the following HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY CRIMINAL PETITION No:7232 OF 2007 ORDER: This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C to quash the proceedings against the petitioner in CC No.56 of 2006, on the file of the Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Vizianagaram. On the complaint made by the 2nd respondent, a case in Crime No.18 of 2005 of I Town Police Station was registered for the offences under Sections 405, 409 and 477(A) IPC and on filing of the charge sheet, the same was taken cognizance by the learned Magistrate, Vizianagaram. Perused the material available on record. The material on record goes to show that on 12.1.2005, the 2nd respondent-Divisional Co operative Officer gave a complaint against the petitioner-commission agent to the S.H.O- I Town Police Station for taking action against him for falsification of the records and appropriation of the funds of the society. It is alleged that the petitioner-accused was appointed as an agent by the General Manager of Co-operative Central Bank, Vizianagaram, and the duty of the accused is to collect the day deposits from the depositors and remit the same in the Kotha Agraharam Branch immediately on the next day and during the audit for the year 1994-95, L.Ws. 12 and 13 submitted a special report dated 21.9.1995 with the findings that the petitioner- accused involved in falsification of the records and thereby committed misappropriation of the amount in the Branch to a tune of Rs.3,57,867/- for the years 1992-93, 1993-94 and 1994-95. Basing on the report, the Collector ordered for initiation of the enquiry and that after conducting the enquiry, a report was submitted to the Collector stating that the petitioner-accused has not remitted the actual amounts received as per the pass books from the depositors and on receipt of the said report, the Collector, instructed L.W.1-2nd respondent to lodge criminal complaint against the petitioner-accused and thereby, a crime was registered and investigated into and after completion of the investigation, charge sheet was also filed against the petitioner- accused. The learned Counsel for the petitioner contends that the 2nd respondent (L.W.1) lodged the complaint on the basis of the order of the District Collector against the petitioner on 12.1.2005 and he has not independently applied his mind to lodge the complaint and he was influenced by the order of the District Collector and hence, the proceedings in question are liable to be quashed. In the case on hand, the complaint was given after complete and conscious scrutiny of the records and after conducting enquiry in respect of the allegation against the accused. The police had already filed the charge sheet and the same was taken cognizance as C.C.No.56 of 2006. At this stage, it is the case of the petitioner- accused that the complainant was influenced by the District Collector. But, the mere attribution of malafides against the complainant would not be a ground or basis for quashing the proceedings in question. On the other, the learned Counsel for the petitioner-accused further contends that the District Collector is not vested with any power for according sanction to the complainant to lodge a complaint against the petitioner and therefore, the criminal proceedings are totally unsustainable in the eye of law. In support of his contention, he placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in WP No.4683 of 1997 and batch, dated 8.4.2005. But the said judgment cannot be made applicable to the present case in view of the fact basing on the special report, the Collector (Co-operation) entrusted the enquiry to L.W.2, who after conducting enquiry submitted a report to the Collector (Co-operation). In turn, the Collector (Co-operation) instructed L.W.2-complainant to lodge a criminal case against the petitioner-accused. The direction to lodge the criminal case was of the year 1998 and the same has not been challenged by the petitioner-accused. I n H.N. Rishbud V. State of Delhi[1] in relation to Sections 190, 193, 195 to 199 and 537 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, a three-Judge Bench of the Supreme Court held that “A defect or illegality in investigation, however serious, has no direct bearing on the competence or the procedure relating to cognizance or trial. No doubt, a police report which results from an investigation is provided in Section 190 Cr.P.C as the material on which cognizance is taken. But it cannot be maintained that a valid and legal police report is the foundation of the jurisdiction of the Court to take cognizance. Section 190 Cr.P.C. is one out of a group of sections under the heading ‘Conditions requisite for initiation of proceedings’. The other sections viz., Sections 193 and 195 to 199 regulate the competence of the Court and bar its jurisdiction in certain cases excepting in compliance therewith. But Section 190 does not. Further, when such a breach is brought to the notice of the Court at an early stage of the trial, the Court will have to consider the nature and extent of the violation and pass appropriate orders for such re- investigation as may be called for, wholly or partly, and by such officer as it considers appropriate with reference to the requirements of section 5-A of the Prevention of Corruption Act.” Admittedly, in the present case, after long lapse of time, the petitioner is seeking quash of the proceedings which was taken cognizance by the Magistrate. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to quash the proceedings at this belated stage. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. ________________________ Justice A. Gopal Reddy Date: 23rd December, 2010 Nn. HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY CRIMINAL PETITION No:7232 OF 2007 23.12.2010 [1] AIR 1955 SC 196