1. This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (Cr.P.C.), seeking quashment of proceedings against the petitioner in C.C. No. 440 of 2016, pending on the file of the learned VI Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Medchal-Malkajgiri District at L.B. Nagar.

2. The petitioner is arrayed as Accused No. 2 in the aforesaid Calendar Case, facing accusations for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 406 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

3. Heard Mr. Gummalla Bhasker Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Surepalli Prashanth, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, appearing for respondent No.1-State. None appeared on behalf of respondent No.2

4.1. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 11.02.2014, Respondent No.2/Secretary of the Church Educational Society, Bagh Amberpet, Hyderabad, lodged a police report alleging financial irregularities, cheating, and misappropriation of the funds of Aurora’s Scientific and Technical Institute, Aushapur Village, Ghatkesar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. The institution was established in 2002, and Accused No.1 was appointed as its Principal with responsibility for its administration. It was alleged that Accused No.1 appointed Accused No.3 as Accountant, her husband as Data Entry Operator, and the petitioner herein/Accused No.2 as Assistant Registrar in 2009. In 2013, Accused No.1 was transferred as Director (HR), and one Mr. B.L. Raju was appointed as Principal. Upon assuming charge, Mr. B.L. Raju allegedly scrutinized the college accounts and tuition-fee receipts and found several fake and fabricated receipts. An internal audit allegedly disclosed and accounted for a loss of approximately Rs.2,16,32,885/-. A preliminary enquiry allegedly found a prima facie case of financial fraud against Accused Nos.1 and 3, her husband, and the petitioner/Accused No.2.

               4.2. The de facto complainant alleged that fake receipts had been issued and that the irregularities were committed in furtherance of a common intention. Accordingly, Crime No.97 of 2014 was registered against Accused Nos.1 to 4 for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 420, 468, and 471 read with Section 34 of the IPC. Upon completion of the investigation, the police filed a charge sheet only against the petitioner/Accused No.2 and Accused Nos.1 and 3 for the offences punishable under Sections 406 and 420 read with Section 34 of the IPC. The learned Magistrate thereafter took cognizance of the said offences.

5.1. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated and that there is no specific allegation, overt act, or incriminating material connecting him with the alleged misappropriation, cheating, or fabrication of receipts. It is contended that the complaint, the statements of the witnesses, and the charge sheet attribute responsibility for the administration of the accounts primarily to Accused No.1, who allegedly acted in connivance with Accused No.3/Accountant. According to the petitioner, the allegations against him are substantially confined to the fact that Accused No.1 recommended his appointment as Assistant Registrar in 2009 and that he joined the post on 14.09.2009. It is further submitted that there is no material to show that the petitioner handled the allegedly misappropriated funds, fabricated or used any fake receipts, induced any person to part with money, or dishonestly misappropriated any property. Mere recommendation for, or appointment to, the post of Assistant Registrar, according to the petitioner, does not establish the ingredients of the alleged offences or demonstrate the existence of a common intention with the other accused.

               5.2. It is also contended that, despite the initial registration of the case against four accused, the investigation ultimately resulted in the filing of a charge sheet against the petitioner and Accused Nos.1 and 3 without disclosing any specific incriminating material against the petitioner in relation to the alleged loss of approximately Rs.2.16 crores. The petitioner further alleges that the investigation, insofar as he is concerned, was mechanical and that the learned Magistrate took cognizance without proper application of judicial mind. It is, therefore, contended that no prima facie case is made out against the petitioner and that continuation of the proceedings against him would amount to an abuse of the process of law. On these grounds, the petitioner seeks quashing of the proceedings against him in the Calendar Case.

6.1. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor contends that the charge sheet and the material collected during the investigation disclose a prima facie case against the petitioner. The alleged financial irregularities pertaining to the period from 2009-10 to 2012-13 resulted in an alleged loss of Rs.2,16,32,885/-, as reflected in the audit, which noticed duplicate receipts, improper maintenance of cash books, unaccounted cash withdrawals, unsigned vouchers, missing stock entries, and irregular salary advances. It is submitted that Accused No.1 was responsible for the administration and accounts, while Accused No.3 was the Accountant involved in fee collection and the issuance of receipts. The statements of the complainant, the Principal, students, and the auditor are relied upon in relation to the irregularities in fee collection and the financial discrepancies.

               6.2. As regards the petitioner/Accused No.2, it is submitted that he was appointed as Assistant Registrar in 2009 on the recommendation of Accused No.1. Though, ordinarily, administration and account files passed through the Assistant Registrar, the charge sheet states that Accused No.1 bypassed Accused No.2 and obtained the relevant records directly from Accused No.3. Significantly, the prosecution relies upon the statement of Accused No.3 that she collected admission and tuition fees, handed over the collections to Accused No.1, issued white-paper receipts on certain occasions, and that Accused No.2 supplied the college fee receipt books to her. On this basis, the respondent-State contends that the petitioner’s role cannot be said to be wholly absent and that his alleged involvement in the common intention under Section 34 of the IPC requires adjudication at trial.

               6.3. It is further submitted that the deletion of Accused No.4 demonstrates that the investigating agency assessed the material collected during the investigation and confined the final charge sheet to the accused against whom it found sufficient material. The respondent-State, therefore, contends that disputed questions concerning the role of the petitioner/Accused No.2, the evidentiary value of the statements, and the existence of common intention cannot be conclusively determined at the stage of quashing. Accordingly, dismissal of the petition is sought.

7. I have carefully considered the rival submissions and perused the material on record.

8. The materials relied upon against the petitioner/Accused No.2 establish, at the highest, that he was working as Assistant Registrar, that his appointment was recommended by Accused No.1, and that, according to the statement of Accused No.3, he supplied the college fee receipt books to her. Significantly, the charge sheet itself records that Accused No.1 bypassed the petitioner and obtained the relevant files directly from Accused No.3. This circumstance, as recorded in the charge sheet, does not by itself disclose any participation by the petitioner in the alleged financial irregularities.

9. There is no specific allegation or material demonstrating that the petitioner/Accused No.2 collected or received the tuition fees, maintained the accounts, issued or fabricated the alleged fake receipts, handled the allegedly misappropriated funds, or received any part of the alleged proceeds of the crime. The mere fact that the petitioner held the post of Assistant Registrar and allegedly supplied receipt books, in the absence of material demonstrating that he knew of any fraudulent use of those receipt books, participated in such use, or otherwise facilitated the alleged fraudulent transactions, cannot, by itself, constitute the offences of criminal breach of trust or cheating. In particular, there must be some material indicating the requisite knowledge, dishonest intention, or participation of the petitioner in the alleged acts of misappropriation or cheating. Mere association with the institution or the holding of an administrative position cannot, without more, establish the ingredients of a criminal offence.

10. Equally, the invocation of common intention under Section 34 of the IPC cannot, by itself, cure the absence of material connecting the petitioner with the alleged offences. It is true that, in every case, an overt act need not necessarily be attributed to each accused for Section 34 to apply. However, the prosecution must nevertheless place before the Court some material from which, at least prima facie, the sharing of a common intention to commit the offence can be inferred. In the present case, even when the statements relied upon by the prosecution are considered alongside the other materials collected during the investigation, there is no material to establish that the fee receipt books allegedly supplied by the petitioner/Accused No.2 were themselves fake or fabricated, or that the petitioner knew that they would be used for any fraudulent purpose. Nor is there material showing that the petitioner participated in the issuance of any alleged fake receipt or in the subsequent collection, retention, or misappropriation of the funds. Thus, apart from the aforesaid circumstances, no independent material is forthcoming against the petitioner from which his participation in the alleged offences or the requisite common intention can reasonably be inferred. The materials on record are, therefore, insufficient to prima facie establish the sharing of a common intention on the part of the petitioner.

11. The prosecution has further relied upon the statement/confession of Accused No.3 to implicate the petitioner/Accused No.2. Such a statement cannot, by itself, be treated as substantive evidence against the petitioner, except to the limited extent permissible under the applicable provisions of the Evidence Act. In any event, the statement of a co-accused, in the absence of independent incriminating material connecting the petitioner with the alleged offences, cannot by itself supply the missing nexus between the petitioner and the alleged acts of cheating, criminal breach of trust, or misappropriation. The prosecution cannot, merely on the basis of such a statement, attribute criminal liability to the petitioner in the absence of other material supporting his alleged participation or knowledge.

12. Thus, even if the allegations in the prosecution case and the materials collected during the investigation are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety, they do not disclose the essential ingredients of the alleged offences against the petitioner/Accused No.2. The material relied upon by the prosecution establishes, at the highest, his official position, his appointment on the recommendation of Accused No.1, and the alleged supply of fee receipt books to Accused No.3. There is, however, no material demonstrating that the petitioner participated in the collection or misappropriation of the tuition fees, fabricated or issued any false receipts, handled the alleged misappropriated funds, received any part of the alleged proceeds of the crime, or had knowledge of the alleged fraudulent transactions. Permitting the criminal prosecution to continue against the petitioner merely on the basis of his official position, the recommendation of Accused No.1 for his appointment, and the alleged supply of fee receipt books, without any material demonstrating his participation in, knowledge of, or dishonest intention with respect to the alleged fraudulent transactions, would amount to permitting a criminal trial to proceed in the absence of a prima facie case against him. The circumstances of the present case, therefore, fall within the parameters laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335, particularly where the allegations and materials on record, even if accepted at face value, do not disclose the commission of the alleged offences by the accused. Accordingly, this Court is satisfied that the materials on record do not disclose a prima facie case against the petitioner/Accused No.2 and that continuation of the criminal proceedings against him would amount to an abuse of the process of law. The proceedings in the Calendar Case, insofar as the petitioner/Accused No.2 is concerned, are therefore liable to be quashed.

13. Resultantly, the Criminal Petition is allowed. Consequently, the proceedings against the petitioner/Accused No.2 in C.C. No. 440 of 2016, pending on the file of the learned VI Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Medchal-Malkajgiri District at L.B. Nagar, are hereby quashed. The proceedings against the remaining accused in the Calendar Case are to be continued in accordance with the law. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.