IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY
WRIT PETITION No.16138 of 2007
Between:
V.R. Maddileti … Petitioner And Govt., of A.P., rep., by its Principal Secretary, Dept., of Housing, Secretariat, Hyderabad & others.
… Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri J.U.M.V. Prasad Counsel for respondent No.2: Sri K. Mohan Rami Reddy Counsel for respondent No.3: AGP for Home The Court made the following:
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.16138 of 2007 ORDER:
This writ petition is filed for a Mandamus to quash FIR No.36 of 2007 dated 10.07.2007.
While the petitioner was working as Work Inspector, Incharge of Indiramma Housing Scheme, he has allegedly committed certain acts for which an FIR was registered on the report lodged by the Deputy Executive Engineer of respondent No.2 Corporation (for short, “the Corporation”). The petitioner filed the present writ petition seeking quashing of the said FIR. According to him, the Corporation has issued circular dated 05.07.2007 which provided for voluntary disclosure of irregular cases by Mandal Incharges and that if such disclosures were made before 13.07.2007, they will be given amnesty and no disciplinary action would be taken for the irregular payments, if any made.
At the hearing, placing heavy reliance on the circular, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Corporation was not justified in violating its own circular by lodging the report.
Sri K. Mohan Rami Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for the Corporation, submitted that in view of the serious irregularities committed by the petitioner, both departmental and criminal proceedings have been initiated, that after departmental enquiry, the petitioner was removed from service, which was confirmed in appeal and that the petitioner has filed a writ petition in this Court, which is pending. He further stated that at the moment the petitioner is out of employment.
Learned counsel for the petitioner, while admitting that his client was removed from service and a writ petition is pending, however, stated that even the material in the disciplinary proceedings discloses that the petitioner has not committed acts of misappropriation warranting his prosecution.
I am afraid, this Court would not go into the issue whether the petitioner is guilty of the acts which constitute offences. The scope of the writ petition for quashing the FIR is limited to examining whether the allegations contained in it, taken on their face value, disclose commission of offences.
On a careful examination of the contents of the FIR reveals that the petitioner is facing the allegations of irregular and excess payment to an extent of Rs.9,18,580/-. Therefore, it cannot be said that the allegations do not make out commission of an offence.
As regards the circular on which the learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance, in my opinion, if the petitioner is guilty of an offence, there can be no agreement between the Corporation and him that he cannot be prosecuted even though he has committed an offence. Any offence committed is a crime against the society at large and there cannot be an agreement between two persons or a person and the State or its agency absolving the person committing a crime from the liability of prosecution.
In this view of the matter, even if the Corporation has violated its circular that does not exonerate the petitioner of the liability arising out of the commission of an offence, if such offence is proved against him. Therefore, I do not find any justifiable reason to quash the FIR. The petitioner is entitled to participate in the trial and defend himself against the charges.
Subject to the above observations, the writ petition is dismissed. As a sequel to dismissal of the writ petition, WPMP.No.20512 of 2007 and WVMP.No.1054 of 2008 are also dismissed.
C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Date: 25.06.2010. ES