1. This Criminal Petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, ‘Cr.P.C.’) by the petitioner/accused seeking to quash the proceedings in FIR No.07/RCA-ACB-NZB/2022 of ACB Police Station, Nizamabad Range, registered for the offence under Section 13(1)(b) r/w 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (as amended in 2018) (hereinafter referred to as, ‘the Act’).

2. Brief facts of the case:

                  2.1 The case of the prosecution is that, consequent to the case registered against the petitioner vide Crime No. 5/RCO/ACB-NZB/2020, for the offences under Sections 7(a), 7(c) and 12 of the Act, and Sections 417 and 120-B read with 34 of IPC, searches were conducted on 25.11.2020 at the residence of the petitioner and two other accused and certain other locations, including Locker No.7 at Axis Bank, Kanteshwar Branch, Nizamabad, jointly held by the petitioner and his wife, wherein it is found that the petitioner is in possession of huge net cash of Rs.34,40,200/- apart from gold and silver, for which he could not account satisfactorily.

                  2.2 It is further case of the prosecution that the petitioner while working as public servant from 2008 to till date, Accused Officer (AO) has acquired Assets in the shape of residential house, agriculture lands, gold, car, bike, bank balances and net cash in locker etc., total worth of about Rs.87,89,640/- on his name and in the name of his wife and daughter. The AO’s probable income from all known sources during the above said period is worked out to about Rs.89,14,047/-. Similarly, the AO’s probable expenditure during the above said period is worked out to about Rs.33,62,321/-. The likely savings of AO is thus Rs.55,51,726/-. As against the likely savings of about Rs.55,51,726/-, the AO was found in possession of assets valued about Rs.87,89,640/-. Thus, the AO is in possession of Disproportionate assets to a tune of Rs.32,37,914/- (89,14,047 – 33,62,321). Hence, the petitioner has committed an offence punishable under Section 13(1)(b) r/w 13(2) of the Act.

                  2.3 In view of the above, a detailed report was submitted to the Director General, Anti-Corruption Bureau, Telangana State, Hyderabad, to accord permission to register a case and to conduct investigation against the petitioner. Based on the report, the Director, ACB, TS, Hyderabad accorded permission to register a case under Section 13(1)(b) r/w 13(2) of the Act against the petitioner vide proceedings in C.No.75/RCO-NZB/2020-S4, dated 23.11.2022. In view of the above orders and the act committed by the petitioner, the present case was registered for the aforesaid offence.

3. Heard Sri D.Prakash Reddy, learned Senior Counsel representing Smt. Madhavilatha Katasani, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri T.Bala Mohan Reddy, learned Special Public Prosecutor, appearing on behalf of respondent-State.

4. Submissions of learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner:

                  4.1 Learned Senior Counsel submitted that the petitioner has not committed any offence and he was falsely implicated in the present case. He further submitted that initially Crime No.5/RCO-ACB-NAB/2020 was registered against the petitioner for the offences under Sections 7(a)(c) and 12 of the Act and Sections 417, 120(B) r/w 34 of IPC, on the alleged ground of demand of bribe and acceptance of the same and the petitioner had approached this Court and filed Criminal Petition No.9027 of 2021 seeking to quash the proceedings in the above crime and this Court allowed the said Criminal Petition on 01.08.2022 and the said order has become final. Hence, lodging another crime with same material for difference offence against the petitioner is only with an intention to harass him. The allegations made in the present complaint and the allegations made in the earlier complaint are one and same.

                  4.2 He further submitted that even according to the allegations made in the present complaint, while the alleged searches were conducted on 25.11.2020, they came to a conclusion that the petitioner is in possession of disproportionate assets to a tune of Rs.32,37,914/- and basing on the said allegation pertaining to November, 2020, the present crime was registered on 28.11.2022 after lapse of nearly more than two years from the date of alleged inspection, especially subsequent to quashing of the earlier crime by this Court on 01.08.2022, by giving different colour that the petitioner was in possession of disproportionate assets and the same is not permissible under law.

                  4.3 He further submitted that the Deputy Superintendent of Police, ACB had issued notice on 20.10.2021 directing the petitioner to submit explanation in respect of possession of gold worth Rs.9,12,800/-, silver worth Rs.1,020/- and net cash of Rs.34,40,200/-, total worth Rs.43,54,020/-, which were found in the joint locker of the petitioner and his wife in the search, which was conducted on 25.11.2020. Pursuant to the same, the petitioner submitted detailed explanation on 03.11.2021 and the same was not considered.

                  4.4 He further submitted that the wife of petitioner is a Government employee, working as Teacher since 2010 and she is drawing a monthly salary of Rs.39,000/- per month and her salary was not taken into consideration. If the salary of the petitioner’s wife is taken into consideration, there will not be any disproportionate assets.

                  4.5 He also submitted that the petitioner had received an amount of Rs.34,40,200/- from his father namely Indur Nrsimulu towards his part of share from the sale transaction of his ancestral property i.e. agriculture land to an extent of Ac.0-39 gts. located at Thandur area vide Agreement, dated 14.04.2019, executed in favour of Abdullah Mujahedi. The said document was enclosed along with the explanation dated 03.11.2021 but the same was not considered without any reasons.

                  4.6 He further submitted that merely because of the non-granting of the sanction by the Government in lodging the complaint pertaining to the allegations in the month of November, 2020 about disproportionate assets, respondent is not entitled to lodge a complaint in the year 2022 with a long delay, especially the order passed by this Court in Criminal Petition No.9027 of 2021, dated 01.08.2022, has become final. Hence, the continuation of the proceedings against the petitioner is clear abuse of the process of law and the same is liable to be quashed.

5. Submissions of learned Special Public Prosecutor for respondent:

                  5.1 Per contra, the learned Special Public Prosecutor submitted that the respondent, after following the due procedure, considering the explanation submitted by the petitioner, and examining relevant documents, has rightly initiated the proceedings and registered the present complaint. There are specific allegations levelled against the petitioner that he is in possession of disproportionate of assets.

                  5.2 He further submitted that the allegations made in the earlier Crime No.5/RCO-ACB-NAB/2020 and the allegations made in the present complaint, are different and distinct, especially the present crime is pertaining to disproportionate of assets. The petitioner has not given satisfactory explanation about possessing of huge amount of Rs.34,40,200/-, which was seized from bank locker. He also submitted that the petitioner in his explanation alleged that the said amount is pertaining to sale proceeds in respect of the agriculture land of Rs.0-39 guntas, which was alienated by his father through Agreement of Sale, dated 14.04.2019, in favour of Abdullah Mujahedi. However, said agreement is lacking the signature of the person, who executed it and there are discrepancies. Hence, the respondent disbelieved the version of the petitioner as alleged in his reply.

                  5.3 He further submitted that whether the seized amount, gold and silver, from the Bank joint locker of the petitioner and his wife were acquired through his income or his wife’s income or from the sale proceeds arising out of Agreement of Sale, dated 14.04.2019, or the same was acquired through other sources, are disputed facts and the same cannot be adjudicated and decided in the present petition and the same has to be revealed during the course of investigation and the petitioner is not entitled to seek for quashing of proceedings at the stage of crime.

                  5.4 He further submitted that the respondent has already taken decision to file S.L.P. being aggrieved by the order, dated 01.08.2020, passed by this Court in Criminal Petition No.9027 of 2021, dated 01.08.2022 and has sought permission from the Government, which is pending, especially basing upon the above said order, dated 01.08.2020, the petitioner is not entitled to seek for quashing of the proceedings. The allegations made in the present complaint pertaining to disproportionate of assets and the ingredients for the offence under Section 13(1)(b) r/w 13(2) of the Act are attracted against the petitioner.

                  5.5 In support of his contention, he relied upon the following judgments of the Hon’ble Apex Court;

                  i) State of Rajasthan v. Surendra Singh Rathore ((2025) 3 S.C.R. 193);

                  and

                  ii) Central Bureau of Investigation and others v. Thommandru Hannah Vijayalakshmi and others.

                  Analysis:

6. Having considered the rival submissions made by the respective parties and after perusal of the material available on record, it reveals that the petitioner is a Government employee and while he was discharging his duties as Inspector of Police, Kamareddy Town police Station, the respondent conducted a raid against him, and Crime No.5/RCO/ACB-NZB/2020 was registered. A search was conducted at the house of the petitioner, along with two other accused persons on 25.11.2020 and a search was also conducted pertaining to Bank Locker No.7 of Axis Bank, Kanteshwar Branch, Nizamabad Town, jointly owned by the petitioner and his wife namely Thirumala Jyothi. In the said search, police found net cash of Rs.34,40,200/-, gold worth Rs.9,12,800/- and silver worth Rs.1,020/-, total worth Rs.43,54,200/- and the same were seized.

7. The record further reveals that the D.S.P., ACB, Nizamabad Range had issued notice on 20.10.2021 directing the petitioner to submit explanation as to how he acquired the above said cash, gold and silver, which were seized by the police from the joint locker. Pursuant to the same, the petitioner has submitted explanation on 03.11.2021, wherein he stated that he received cash of Rs.34,40,200/- from his father, who alienated the ancestral agriculture land to an extent of Ac.0-39 guntas, by executing the Agreement of Sale on 14.04.2019 and the gold and silver ornaments belongs to his wife, which were received by her as stridhana property. After considering the said explanation, the Department after obtaining necessary permission from the Government, registered the present crime against the petitioner on 28.11.2022 for the offences punishable under Section 13(1)(b) r/w 13(2) of the Act on the ground that the petitioner is in possession of the above mentioned disproportionate assets.

8. The contention of the learned Senior counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner in his explanation specifically stated that he received the net cash of Rs.34,40,200/- towards his share from his father, who alienated the ancestral property, by executing Agreement of Sale, dated 14.09.2019, and copy of the Agreement of Sale was also enclosed along with the said explanation and the same was not considered without any reasons. Whereas the case of the respondent No.2 is that the Agreement of Sale does not contain the signature of the person, who executed it and also there are discrepancies in the said Agreement. Whether the petitioner had received the seized amount from his father pertaining to the sale consideration of his share arising out of the above said Agreement of Sale dated 14.09.2019, is disputed fact and the same has to be revealed during the course of investigation.

9. Insofar as the other contention raised by the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner that the respondent did not consider the income of the wife of the petitioner, who is a Government employee, working as a Secondary Grade Teacher (SGT) since 2010, and that if her income is taken into consideration while assessing the disproportionate assets, there would be no disproportionate of assets, is also disputed fact and the same cannot be adjudicated at this stage.

10. The respondent in the counter mentioned the reasons for delay in registration of the present crime occurred because of the necessary sanction from the Government. It is also mentioned that they have already taken a decision to file Appeal before the Hon’ble Supreme Court, aggrieved by the order, dated 01.08.2022, passed by this Court in Crl.P.No.9027 of 2021 and sanction is pending before the Government.

11. The allegations made in the earlier complaint in Crime No.5/RCO/ACB-NZB/2020 and the allegations made in present complaint, are different and distinct. In the present complaint, there are specific allegations against the petitioner that he possessed huge amount of Rs.34,40,200/-, for which he has not accounted satisfactorily and the petitioner being a Government employee possessed huge amount of net cash, other gold and silver jewellery, for which he could not satisfactorily account for and he is possessing disproportionate assets.

12. In State of Rajasthan v. Surendra Singh Rathore (2025 SCC OnLine SC 358), the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that a second FIR is maintainable when it is founded on new facts or a larger conspiracy, applying the “test of sameness” from Babu Bhai v. State of Gujarat ((2010) 12 SCC 254) and Nirmal Singh Kahlon v. State of Punjab ((2010) 12 SCC 254). The Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that while the first FIR related to a specific bribe demand, the second arose from surveillance-based inputs revealing a broader pattern of corruption, and therefore the High Court erred in quashing it. Similarly, in CBI v. Thommandru Hannah Vijayalakshmi ((2021) 18 SCC 135), the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the High Court cannot conduct a “mini-trial” at the stage of quashing, nor scrutinize financial documents or weigh evidence like a Chartered Accountant; its role is limited to seeing whether the FIR discloses a cognizable offence, and the absence of a preliminary enquiry is not a ground to quash.

13. The principles laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court supra are squarely applicable to the facts and circumstance of the case, as the earlier crime against the petitioner related to different allegations, whereas the present FIR concerns the distinct offence of possessing disproportionate assets. Since the present FIR discloses a cognizable offence and is based on material different from the earlier crime, the bar on a second FIR is not attracted, and the quashing sought by the petitioner is unwarranted. The petitioner’s explanations regarding his wife’s salary or the alleged Agreement of Sale are disputed facts that require investigation and cannot be adjudicated at this stage.

14. It is well settled that the power under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to quash a First Information Report is to be exercised sparingly and with great caution, and only in the rarest of rare cases where the allegations in the FIR, even if taken at their face value, do not disclose the commission of any offence. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal ((1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 ) issued a note of caution that such extraordinary power cannot be invoked to stifle a legitimate investigation or to embark upon an inquiry into the truth or otherwise of the allegations. An FIR is not required to be an encyclopedia of all facts relating to the alleged offence. It is only intended to set the criminal law in motion and to enable the investigating agency to collect material to ascertain the truth of the allegations. The law does not require that all the ingredients of the offence must be spelled out in the FIR. As observed in Rajesh Bajaj v. State (NCT of Delhi) ((1999) 3 SCC 259), the absence of detailed particulars or one or two ingredients does not justify quashing at the threshold if a factual foundation for the alleged offence exists.

15. For the foregoing reasons as well as the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court supra, this Court does not find any ground to quash the proceedings in No.07/RCA-ACB-NZB/2022 of ACB Police Station, Nizamabad Range against the petitioner. 16. In the result, the criminal petition is dismissed.

As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous applications, if any, pending in this petition stand closed.