Dr. D. Nagarjun, J.

1. This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure by the petitioner-accused No. 2 to quash the proceedings in C.C. No. 276 of 2015 on the file of learned III Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Hyderabad, the cognizance of which was taken on file for the offences punishable under Sections 406 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code.

2. The brief facts, as per the record available before the Court are as under:

a) On 21.06.2012 at 5.30 PM the Divisional Cooperative Officer, Golconda has lodged a complaint before the Banjara Hills Police Station against Sri K. Prabhakar Reddy, Ex President the petitioner herein and Sri K. Sathyanarayana, Ex-Managing Committee Member of Sri Venkateshwara Cooperative House Building Society Limited, and also against the vendees and the Joint Sub-Registrar, Hyderabad (South) alleging that they have fraudulently registered certain sale deeds to the individuals on 31-12-2012 whether any powers to do so as the official person in charge has been appointed on 29.12.2011 by the Commissioner for Cooperation and Registrar of Cooperative Societies, Andhra Pradesh vide Proceedings in Rc. No. 24877/2007 dated 29.12.2011 and that he assumed charge on 30.12.2011.

b) It is further alleged in the complaint that Sri Venkateshwara Cooperative House Building Society Limited was registered under the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Cooperative Societies Act, 1964 with registered No. TAB No. 105. The main object of the society is carry out the benefit of its members by providing house sites, construction of buildings buying and selling, hiring, letting and developing of land etc. The elections to the societies were held on 30.12.2006 by the Election Officer Smt. R.Sarada Divisional Cooperative Officer, Secunderabad for a term of (05) years. The particulars of Managing Committee are as under:

1. K. Prabhakar Reddy - President

2. K. Veera Reddy - Vice President

3. D. Rama Rao - Secretary

4. T. Govardhan Reddy - Treasurer

5. P. Narayana Rao - Managing Committee

6. N.K.Benjamin - Managing Committee

7. K. Satya Narayana - Managing Committee

8. V. Sitha Ramaiah - Managing Committee

c) It is further mentioned in the complaint that the term of the Managing Committee was expired on 29.12.2011, soon after the expiry of the term of the Managing Committee the Commissioner for Co-operation and Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad vide proceeding Rc. No. 24877/10, dated 29.12.2011 has appointed Sri D. Krishna Reddy, Joint Registrar, O/o. the Commissioner for Co-operation and Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad as official person in charge under Section 37 (7(a) of the Andhra Pradesh Cooperative Societies Act, 1964 to manage the affairs of Sri Venkateshwara CHBS Limited for a period of (6) six months from the date of assumption of charge till the elections to the Managing Committee of the Society are held and elected committee assumes charge whichever is earlier since the elected board of the said society was expired on 29.12.2011.

d) It is further mentioned in the complaint that as per the orders of Commissioner for Cooperation and Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad the person in charge has assumed charge of Venkateshwara on 30.12.2011 and on the same day the person in charge requested the Ex-President to hand over entire records of the society. But the EX-President has handed over a part of the record on 09.01.2012 and informed that the remaining record is available with Sri B. Rama Rao, Ex-Secretary of the Society. But Sri B. Rama Rao has not handed over anything and saying that he does not have any record with him. The person in charge requested to issue necessary instructions to the District Cooperative Officer, Hyderabad (Urban) District to give instructions to proceed against the Ex-Managing Committee Members under the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Cooperative Societies Act, 1964 vide his letter dated 31.01.2012 to Commissioner for Cooperation Registrar of Cooperative Societies, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad.

e) It is also mentioned in the complaint that on the complaint of Sri P. Goverdhan Reddy, Treasurer and Sri K. Veera Reddy and four (4) others against Sri K. Prabhakar Reddy, Ex-President, the Joint Registrar/District Cooperative Officer (Urban) District has conducted preliminary enquiry and submitted the report to the Commissioner for Cooperation and Registrar of Cooperative Societies, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad confirming the occurrence of certain serious irregularities such as unauthorizedly executing sale deeds by causing loss to the society assets.

f) On the strength of the said complaint, Police have registered a case in Crime No. 578 of 2012 was registered for the offences punishable under Section 406 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code. During the course of investigation, the statements of witnesses were recorded and obtained the certified copies of the registered sale deeds, which were allegedly executed by the accused, from the office of Joint Sub Registrar at District Registrar of Hyderabad (South), the details of which are as follows:

1. Document No. 85/2012 dated 31.12.2011 registered at Joint Sub Registrar at District Registrar of Hyderabad (South) in the name of Janga Raghava Reddy pertaining to the land admeasuring 600 square yards bearing Plot No. 10/E/10.

2. Document No. 86/2012 dated 31.12.2011 registered at Joint Sub Registrar at District Registrar of Hyderabad (South) in the name of Ch. Rama Devi pertaining to the land admeasuring 300 square yards bearing Plot No. 10/E/6.

3. Document No. 87/2012 dated 31.12.2011 registered at Joint Sub Registrar at District Registrar of Hyderabad (South) in the name of Ch. Rama Devi pertaining to the land admeasuring 300 square yards bearing Plot No. 10/E/7.

4. Document No. 88/2012 dated 31.12.2011 registered at Joint Sub Registrar at District Registrar of Hyderabad (South) in the name of D. Srinivas Rao pertaining to the land admeasuring 300 square yards bearing Plot No. 10/E/9.

5. Document No. 89/2012 dated 31.12.2011 registered at Joint Sub Registrar at District Registrar of Hyderabad (South) in the name of D. Srinivas Rao pertaining to the land admeasuring 300 square yards bearing Plot No. 10/E/8.

6. Document No. 90/2012 dated 31.12.2011 registered at Joint Sub Registrar at District Registrar of Hyderabad (South) in the name of Vara Laxmi pertaining to the land admeasuring 300 square yards bearing Plot No. 10/E/11 (part).

7. Document No. 91/2012 dated 31.12.2011 registered at Joint Sub Registrar at District Registrar of Hyderabad (South) in the name of D. Srinivas Rao and Ch. Srinivas Rao pertaining to the land admeasuring 600 square yards bearing Plot No. 149/A/B/1.

8. Document No. 92/2012 dated 28.12.2011 registered at Joint Registrar at District Registrar of Hyderabad (South) in the name of K. Pratap Reddy pertaining to the land admeasuring 200 square yards adjacent to Plot No. 70-A.

g) The investigation revealed that the above sale deeds except document No. 92/2012 were registered by accused Nos. 1 and 2 (the petitioner herein) to various persons on 31.12.2011 in the capacity of Managing Committee of the society though the official person in charge, who was appointed by the Registrar, Cooperative Society assumed charge of the said society on 30.12.2011 as the period of the managing committee of A1 was expired. After completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed and cognizance of which was taken on file as C.C. No. 276 of 2015 on the file of learned III Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Hyderabad for the offences punishable under Sections 406 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner-accused No. 2 has filed the present petition to quash the proceedings against him in C.C. No. 276 of 2015 on the file of learned III Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Hyderabad, on the following grounds:

i) The petitioner-accused No. 2 was appointed as member of M/s. Sri Venkateswara Cooperative House Building Society for A.P.Legislators bearing registration No. TAB-185. Elections were conducted as per the schedule given by the Election Officer. The Deputy Registrar/Divisional Co-operative Officer, Secunderabad Division/Election Officer addressed a letter in Rc. No. 1/2005-Elec. Dated 21.12.2006 to the person-in-charge of the Society fixing the election schedule as below:

ii) As per the election schedule, declaration of results is 03.01.2007 and resuming charge shall be later. The bye-law 22 of the Venkateswara Co-operative House Building Society stipulates the terms of the Managing Committee as originally three years which was amended as 5 years and accordingly the petitioner's term expired after five years from the date of his assumption of charge.

iii) He made numerous requests to the Commissioner for Co-operation and Registrar of Cooperative Societies informing him that the tenure is coming to an end in the month of December, 2011 and requested to conduct, the elections immediately but all his efforts went in vain. Accused No. 1 also addressed a letter on 15.12.2011 to the Commissioner and Registrar of Co-operative Societies requesting him for extension of term of the society so that the fresh elections of the society can be conducted after completion of all the formalities in accordance with law. Having received the representation the Commissioner maintained silence, for the reasons best known to him.

iv) Accused No. 1 filed W.P. No. 34854 of 2011 to appoint a person-in-charge to the Society headed by him as the Chairman till fresh elections are conducted or to extend the term of the society till fresh elections are conducted. Along with the above said writ, Accused No. 1 has also filed W.P.M.P. No. 43344 of 2011 in W.P. No. 34854 of 2011 to direct the Commissioner and Registrar of Cooperative Societies to consider his representation dated 15.12.2011 forthwith pending disposal of the W.P.

v) The above said Writ Petition came up for admission before the Single Judge on 08.02.2012, wherein the following interim directions were passed:

"It is stated that the petitioner, representing the elected Managing Committee, made request to the respondent to conduct election much before expiry of the term and that the same was not acceded to. As of now an official of the Cooperative Department is appointed as person-in-charge.

This Court, prima facie, feels that having regard to the nature of functions to be undertaken and duties to be discharged by the Society concerned, it is not at all safe to entrust the entire administration to an official, hardly works on part time basis.

Hence, it is directed that the Managing Committee whose term expired on 31.12.2011 shall be associated with the person-in-charge as regards day today administration of the Society. However, the Committee shall not be entitled to transfer any plots. It shall maintain proper accounts and submit the same to the Deputy Registrar of Cooperative Societies once in every month."

vi) The carbon copy of the order was communicated to the Commissioner directly by the Registry of the High Court in the second week of February, 2012. A copy of the same was also submitted by A1 through a representation dated 15.02.2012 to the Commissioner and Registrar of Cooperative Societies and requested to take further action in the matter. The order was continued to be in operation till it was vacated by the Court vide order dated 04.04.2013.

vii) The person-in-charge appointed by the Commissioner and Registrar of Cooperative Societies took the charge and record from accused No. 1 on 09.01.2012. Till that date, the order appointing the person-in-charge by the Commissioner and Registrar of Cooperative Societies was not communicated to the petitioner. The person-in-charge so appointed never visited the office of the subject society till the record was handed over by him by accused No. 1.

viii) The de-facto complainant has no personal knowledge about the contents made in the complaint against the petitioner. The complaint given by the de-facto complainant is not maintainable as it is frivolous and charge sheet was also filed in a routine manner without proper investigation.

ix) The Commissioner and Registrar of Cooperative Societies did not issue any notice to the petitioner for conducting preliminary enquiry under Section 51 of the A.P. Cooperative Societies Act. Without conducting enquiry under Section 51 and 60 of the A.P. Cooperative Societies Act, the criminal complaint lodged by de-facto complainant is not maintainable. If the Commissioner and Registrar of Cooperative Societies prima facie satisfied about the irregularities on the basis of report of the Enquiry Officer, he may initiate surcharge proceedings under Section 60 of the A.P. Cooperative Societies Act. If a report is sent against the petitioner under Section 51 of the A.P. Cooperative Societies Act, an opportunity has to be given to the petitioner herein to meet the allegations and he must be allowed to cross examine the witnesses, if any, during the enquiry for implicating him in the alleged offences.

x) Sections 60 and 51 of the A.P. Cooperative Societies Act contemplates that an opportunity to be given to person to make a representation to explain his version and allow him to participate in the enquiry before any final order is passed by the Commissioner and Registrar of Cooperative Societies, which is a valuable right given to the person against whom allegations are made, which cannot be brushed aside in a routine manner. Without passing surcharge order against the petitioner through established procedure, the present criminal complaint was lodged without making any enquiry.

xi) Though six months have lapsed from the date of passing of the said interim orders in W.P.M.P. No. 43344/2011 in W.P. No. 34854/2011 dated 08.02.2012, the Commissioner and Registrar of Cooperative Societies did not appoint a full fledged person-in-charge committee to run the day to day administration of the said society except appointing one Mr. D. Krishna Reddy, Joint Registrar as official person-in-charge under Section 32 (7) of the A.P. Cooperative Societies Act to manage the affairs of the Society for a period of six months from the date of assuming the charge or till elections to the Managing Committee of the Society are held and elected committee assumes charge, whichever is earlier. The said officer has neither visited the office of the Society nor took over the charge. However, accused No. 1 being the outgoing President, sent all the records, which are in his custody to the newly appointed person-in-charge office under acknowledgment after about ten days of passing his appointment order i.e., on 09.01.2012. Thereafter, on the request of the said person-in-charge Sri D. Krishna Reddy, the Commissioner and Registrar of Cooperative Societies has issued modified orders in Rc. No. 24897/2010-HG-2, dated 09.04.2012 and appointed one Dr. N.Kiranmayee, Joint Registrar/District Cooperative Officer, Hyderabad (urban) District as new person-in-charge and later Sri K. Ashok Reddy, Joint Registrar/ District Cooperative Officer, R.R. District as Inquiry Officer. Even the second person-in-charge neither visited the Society Office nor attended the day-to-day affairs of the Society, which caused lot of inconvenience to the members and staff of the Society.

xii) After lapse of six months from 01.01.2012 to June, 2012, there is change of number of officers being appointed for conducting a roving enquiry into the affairs of the society and in that connection, they issued notice to accused No. 1 and another under Section 117 of the said Act to hand over the concerned records. According to bye laws of the Society, the Secretary shall be responsible for the executive administration of the said society and shall be subjected to control of President and he shall exercise such powers that may be delegated to him from time to time by the Managing Committee and he has power to operate the accounts of the society within the limits prescribed by the committee and to run day-to-day administration including monetary powers. But unfortunately, even after lapse of more than 6 months period, the person-in-charge has neither conducted elections to the Managing Committee of the said society nor appointed person-in-charge committee with the outgoing members of the Managing Committee whose term has expired on 31.12.2011. The inaction on the part of the Government in this regard is nothing but willful disobedience of the orders of the High Court.

xiii) At no point of time, notice was ever given to the petitioner by the person-in-charge or commissioner to explain on the so called allegation, which violates principles of natural justice. No complaint is received from any of the purchasers/allottees.

xiv) Mr. K.Prabhakar Reddy i.e., accused No. 1 also filed Complaint before the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Criminal Courts, Nampally, Hyderabad, against one Mr. B.Rama Rao, the then Secretary of the outgoing committee for tampering and grabbing the records of the Sri Venkateshwara Cooperative House Building Limited and for threatening the staff of the society with dire consequences. The said complaint is registered and is pending investigation.

xv) Mr. K.Prabhakar Reddy i.e., accused No. 1 has further lodged a complaint with the Lokayukta for misappropriation and irregularities committed by the said B.Rama Rao, the then secretary of the outgoing committee including grabbing of the records of the Society and the same was numbered as Complaint No. 1926/11/B1 and the same is pending investigation on the file of the court of the A.P.Lokayukta.

xvi) The respondent on an erroneous understanding of the issue involved with regard to the affairs of the Sri Venkateshwara Cooperative House Building Limited, said to have issued a notice to Mr. K.Prabhakar Reddy under section 117 of the said Act on 19.05.2012 in Rc. No. 1/2012/H, to hand over the records of the Sri Venkateshwara Cooperative house building Ltd to him immediately failing which further action would be taken to fulfill the said purpose. Immediately, on receipt of said notice, Mr. K.Prabhakar Reddy informed to the concerned officers, who visited his house personally, stating that Al has already handed over the records of the society to the then person-in-charge Mr. D.Krishna Reddy and further as per Bye laws, the Secretary is the custodian of the records but not the President and the Treasurer is the custodian of the receipts and therefore, requested them to obtain the same either from the person-in-charge or from the Secretary and Treasurer of the outgoing managing Committee.

xvii) At any rate, Mr. K.Prabhakar Reddy has acted as per the byelaws of the Sri Venkateshwara Cooperative House Building Limited and as per the resolutions of the society from time to time. The Managing Committee authorized the petitioner as a member to execute the sale deeds in favour of the purchasers, as per Resolution dated 04.05.2009 and as per the same, the petitioner and Mr. K.Prabhakar Reddy executed the sale deeds on 31.12.2011, in favour of eligible persons.

xviii) While matters stood thus, the respondent passed proceedings in Rc. No. 557/11-H, dated 06.06.2012 basing on the instructions of the 2nd respondent vide Memo No. 6463/2010-Hsg. dt. 19.04.2012, requesting the Dy.Commissioner of Police, Central Crime Station, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad to register criminal case against the petitioner and Mr. K.Prabhakar Reddy with the provisions laid down under IPC for the alleged criminal Acts by fraudulently registering certain sale deeds to the individuals without having any powers. The impugned proceedings further states that the person-in-charge of the Sri Venkateshwara Cooperative House Building Limited assumed the charge on 30.12.2011 and on the same day, the person-in-charge requested Mr. K Prabhakar Reckty to hand over the records but the President has handed over part of the record on 09.01.2012 and informed that the remaining record is available with Mr. B.Rama Rao, Ex. Secretary of the Sri Venkateshwara Cooperative House Building Limited; but the said Rama Rao has not handed over the entire records and stated that he has no record to hand over and in view of the above, the person in charge is requested to issue necessary instructions to proceed against Ex. Managing Committee members under the provisions of the said Act.

xix) The Investigating Officer never visited the Society office nor verified the records on which date the Person-in-Charge took charge and till 09-1-2012 the petitioner has continued as President of the Society. The records handing over letter clearly shows that on 09-1-2012, the petitioner has handed over Charge to the Person-in-Charge in which event, as per Bye law 22, he continued to be the President of the Society and not executed any documents after the expiry of that date i.e., on 09-1-2012. Even prior to appointing Person-In-Charge, the Commissioner & Registrar of Co-operative Societies issued Show Cause Notice to the petitioner calling for his explanation on certain irregularities, for which he has replied promptly. After receiving the reply, the present Police Complaint was made by the second respondent herein. The allegations in the show cause notice are different and the allegations in this police complaint are totally different. When this High Court passed orders to continue the Society and Al as President, the Divisional Co-Operative Officer has no jurisdiction to lodge complaint. As such, prima facie there are no merits in the complaint and it is liable to be quashed.

4. Now the point for consideration is:

"Whether the proceedings in C.C. No. 276 of 2015 on the file of learned III Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Hyderabad can quashed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure"

5. Heard Sri Ravi Shankar Jandhyala, learned senior counsel for the petitioner-accused No. 2 and Sri S. Ganesh, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the respondent-Police and perused the record.

6. According to the prosecution, the Managing Committee consisting of petitioner-accused No. 2 herein of the Sri Venkateshwara Cooperative House Building Society Limited was expired on 29.12.2011 and the person in charge, who was appointed by the Commissioner for Cooperation and Registrar of Cooperative Societies, Andhra Pradesh has assumed charge on the very same day i.e., on 29.12.2011. However, the petitioner-accused No. 2 and accused No. 1 have executed certain registered sale deeds in favour of certain persons on 31.12.2011, and thus, on the complaint filed by the Divisional Cooperative Officer, Golconda, the Banjara Hills Police Station have registered a case in Crime No. 578 of 2012. On completion of investigation, the Police have filed charge sheet in C.C. No. 276 of 2015 on the file of learned III Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Hyderabad the cognizance of which was taken on file for the offences punishable under Sections 406 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code.

7. On the other hand, the submissions of the learned senior counsel for the petitioner-accused No. 2 is that the person in charge appointed by Commissioner for Cooperation and Registrar of Cooperative Societies, Andhra Pradesh took charge and also records from accused No. 1 on 09.01.2012 and until then the order of appointing the person in charge by Commissioner for Cooperation and Registrar of Cooperative Societies, Andhra Pradesh was not communicated to the petitioner and the person-in-charge so appointed never visited the office of the subject society till the record was handed over to him by accused No. 1 on 09.01.2012.

8. The petitioner-accused No. 2 contends that the person in charge has taken charge of the affairs of the Society until 09.01.2012 and thereby until then, he continued to be incharge of the society and thus, execution of registered sale deeds on 31.12.2011 is wll within purview, powers and authority of petitioner-accused No. 2 along with accused No. 1 in execution of sale deeds. Therefore, the offence either for the offence under Sections 406 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code is not made out.

9. It is also the submission of the learned senior counsel for the revision petitioner is that the Deputy Registrar/Divisional Co-operative Officer, Secunderabad Division/Election Officer addressed a letter in Rc. No. 1/2005-Elec. Dated 21.12.2006 to the person-in-charge of the Society fixing the election schedule, wherein the results of elections were scheduled on 03.01.2007. It is also submitted that as per the bye-law 22 of the Venkateswara Co-operative House Building Society the term of the Managing Committee is 5 years and since elections results were declared on 03.01.2007 and since the term would expire on 02.01.2012 and not on 03.01.2010. Until what date the term of the Managing Committee of Venkateswara Co-operative House Building Society existed and when the person incharge of the has assumed charge of the society are the primary questions to be decided.

10. There is no dispute that the petitioner-accused No. 2 and accused No. 1 jointly executed 7 registered sale deeds to various persons on 31.12.2007. If really the person in charge has assumed charge on 30.12.2011, then execution of sale deeds by accused No. 1 and petitioner-accused No. 2 on 31.12.2007 is unauthorized. In case, if the term of the office of the Managing Committee of Venkateswara Co-operative House Building Society was in force until 02.01.2012, has allegedly has taken charge on 03.01.2007 for a period of five years, then execution of sale deeds on 31.12.2011 may not be without authorization.

11. Letter dated 21.12.2006 vide Rc. No. 1/2005-Elec addressed by the Deputy Registrar/Divisional Co-operative Officer, Secunderabad Division/Election Officer addressed to the person-in-charge of the Society fixing the election schedule is filed along with this criminal petition, which go to show that though the elections notice to conduct elections was issued on 03.02.2005, the said elections were stayed and subsequently directions were received to continue elections from the stage where such elections were stayed and on which fresh elections schedule was given. According to which polling of votes, counting of votes, declaration of results were scheduled on 03.01.2007. Therefore, once elections were held on 03.01.2007, immediately after declaration of results, if new body has taken charge, then the term of the executive committee will expire on 02.01.2012. Therefore, if five years are calculated from 03.01.2007, the executive committee consisting of accused No. 1 and petitioner/accused No. 2 will continue to be in force until 02.01.2012. If that is accepted, execution of sale deeds on 31.12.2011 by the accused No. 1 and petitioner-accused No. 2 is not invalid.

12. Further, according to the person in charge, he has taken charge on 30.12.2011. So far as this, there is record to show that the person in charge has addressed a letter to the superiors to that extent. However, this has been disputed by the petitioner-accused No. 2 and accused No. 1 stated that person in charge, though stated to have been appointed on 29.12.2011, he has not visited the office and he has not received charge and he has taken over charge on 09.01.2012. Until 09.01.2012 charge was given on 09.01.2012, old body consisting of accused No. 1 and petitioner-accused No. 2 continued to be managing the affairs of the Society. Therefore, the learned senior counsel for the petitioner-accused No. 2 has submitted that the office of the managing committee consisting of accused No. 1 and petitioner-accused No. 2 is five years and thereby from 03.01.2007 the term of five years expires on 02.01.2012 and whereas according to the respondent, the person in charge has assumed charge on 29.12.2011.

13. Therefore, the questions as to whether the term of the managing committee consisting of the petitioner expired on 30.12.2011 when person in charge has taken charge or whether it expired on 02.01.2012 or whether it expired on 09.01.2012 when the charge was allegedly given to the person in charge, have to be answered after full-fledged trial. Basing on the material available before this Court, this Court cannot decide as to what was the date of expiry of the managing committee consisting of the petitioner and others and whether before expiry, the person in charge can take charge on 30.12.2011 and other connected aspects.

14. Other contentions raised by the learned senior counsel for the petitioner is that the Commissioner and Registrar of Cooperative Societies did not issue any notice to the petitioner for conducting preliminary enquiry under Section 51 of the A.P. Cooperative Societies Act. Without conducting enquiry under Section 51 and 60 of the A.P. Cooperative Societies Act, the criminal complaint lodged by de-facto complainant is not maintainable. It is further contented that if the Commissioner and Registrar of Cooperative Societies prima facie satisfied about the irregularities on the basis of report of the Enquiry Officer, he may initiate surcharge proceedings under Section 60 of the A.P. Cooperative Societies Act and that if a report is sent against the petitioner under Section 51 of the A.P. Cooperative Societies Act, an opportunity has to be given to the petitioner herein to meet the allegations and he must be allowed to cross examine the witnesses, if any, during the enquiry for implicating him in the alleged offences. In Garimella Subba Rao and others v. State of Andhra Pradesh represented by Public Prosecutor (2014) 1 ALD(Cri) 53, wherein the High Court of Andhra Pradesh held as follows:

"12. The three judgments of learned single Judges of this Court in D.Prabhakar Reddy's case (1 supra); in V.Nageswara Rao's case (2 supra) and in P.Narsaiah's case (3 supra), have not been brought to the notice of the learned single Judge while disposing of Writ Petition No. 4563 of 2003. Therefore, it was held that after fixing the liability of a person or officer of the society under Section 60 of the Societies Act, the question of prosecution does not arise. So, from the aforesaid reasons, we are of the opinion that even without fixing the liability on a person under Section 60 of the Societies Act, criminal prosecution can go on for the offence punishable under Section 409 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, provided, on filing of report by police under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The Magistrate can take cognizance of any offence if the report sets out facts constituting an offence. Even if no liability is fixed on a person or an officer of a society, still criminal prosecution shall be proceeded with, subject to the facts constituting an offence.

13. In view of the reasons as mentioned hereinbefore, we hold as follows:

(a) Prosecution of the person accused of an offence can be proceeded with both under General Law and Special Law;

(b) Fixing the liability under Section 60 of the Andhra Pradesh Co-operative Societies Act, 1964 is not a condition precedent to set the criminal law into motion;

(c) Even after fixing no liability under Section 60 of the Andhra Pradesh Co-operative Societies Act, 1964, still, the prosecution under General Law viz. the Indian Penal Code, 1860, can be proceeded with subject to the facts constituting an offence;

(d) It must be shown that the ingredients for the offence under General Law and Special Law are one and the same, and the accused shall not be liable to be punished twice for the same offence;

(e) If the ingredients for the offences punishable under General Law and Special Law are distinct and different, then there is no impediment to proceed with the case under two enactments;"

15. The facts and circumstances in the above said decision are identical to the facts and circumstances of the case on hand. Hence, in view of the principle laid down in the above said decision, it can be held that prior to initiation prosecution against an offence fixing the liability under Section 60 of the Andhra Pradesh Co-operative Societies Act, 1964 is not a condition precedent.

16. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner-accused No. 2 has relied upon an authority in Salauddin Owaisi v. DSP, CID, SDT, Hyderabad 2000 (2) ALD (Crl.) 329 (AP), the High Court for the State of Andhra Pradesh held as follows:

"On a scrutiny of statements of witnesses supporting the allegations in the charge-sheet, we are unable to find the ingredients of 468, 471, 420 and 120-B, I.P.C. against the petitioner. All that is alleged against the petitioner is that he approached L. W. 4 and offered to sell the plot allotted to L. W. 3. That by itself cannot constitute the offence of forgery or cheating."

17. The scope of Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in quashing the proceedings against the accused in a criminal case was dealt in Satish Mehra v. State (NCT of Delhi) and anothe (2012) 13 Supreme Court Cases 614, [LQ/SC/2012/1030] the Honourable Supreme Court held as under:

"The power to interdict a proceeding either at the threshold or at an intermediate stage of the trial is inherent in a High Court on the broad principle that in case the allegations made in the FIR or the criminal complaint, as may be, prima facie do not disclose a triable offence there can be reason as to why the accused should be made to suffer the agony of a legal proceeding that more often than not gets protracted. A prosecution which is bound to become lame or a sham ought to interdicted in the interest of justice as continuance thereof will amount to an abuse of the process of the law. This is the core basis on which the power to interfere with a pending criminal proceeding has been recognized to be inherent in every High Court. The power, though available, being extra ordinary in nature has to be exercised sparingly and only if the attending facts and circumstances satisfies the narrow test indicated above, namely, that even accepting all the allegations levelled by the prosecution, no offence is disclosed. However, if so warranted, such power would be available for exercise not only at the threshold of a criminal proceeding but also at a relatively advanced stage thereof, namely, after framing of the charge against the accused. In fact the power to quash a proceeding after framing of charge would appear to be somewhat wider as, at that stage, the materials revealed by the investigation carried out usually comes on record and such materials can be looked into, not for the purpose of determining the guilt or innocence of the accused but for the purpose of drawing satisfaction that such materials, even if accepted in its entirety, do not, in any manner, disclose the commission of the offence alleged against the accused."

18. Similarly in Prashant Bharti v. State (NCT Delhi) (2013) 9 Supreme Court Cases 293, [LQ/SC/2013/107] the Honourable Supreme Court held as under:

"The proposition of law, pertaining to quashing of criminal proceedings, initiated against an accused by a High Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as "the Cr.P.C.") has been dealt with by this Court in Rajiv Thapar & Ors. vs. Madan Lal Kapoor (Criminal Appeal No...... of 2013, arising out of SLP (Crl.) no.4883 of 2008, decided on 23.1.2013) wherein this Court inter alia held as under:

22. The issue being examined in the instant case is the jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., if it chooses to quash the initiation of the prosecution against an accused, at the stage of issuing process, or at the stage of committal, or even at the stage of framing of charges. These are all stages before the commencement of the actual trial. The same parameters would naturally be available for later stages as well. The power vested in the High Court under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., at the stages referred to hereinabove, would have far reaching consequences, inasmuch as, it would negate the prosecution's/complainant's case without allowing the prosecution/complainant to lead evidence. Such a determination must always be rendered with caution, care and circumspection. To invoke its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. the High Court has to be fully satisfied, that the material produced by the accused is such, that would lead to the conclusion, that his/their defence is based on sound, reasonable, and indubitable facts; the material produced is such, as would rule out and displace the assertions contained in the charges levelled against the accused; and the material produced is such, as would clearly reject and overrule the veracity of the allegations contained in the accusations levelled by the prosecution/complainant. It should be sufficient to rule out, reject and discard the accusations levelled by the prosecution/complainant, without the necessity of recording any evidence. For this the material relied upon by the defence should not have been refuted, or alternatively, cannot be justifiably refuted, being material of sterling and impeccable quality. The material relied upon by the accused should be such, as would persuade a reasonable person to dismiss and condemn the actual basis of the accusations as false. In such a situation, the judicial conscience of the High Court would persuade it to exercise its power under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. to quash such criminal proceedings, for that would prevent abuse of process of the court, and secure the ends of justice.

23. Based on the factors canvassed in the foregoing paragraphs, we would delineate the following steps to determine the veracity of a prayer for quashing, raised by an accused by invoking the power vested in the High Court under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C.:-

(i) Step one, whether the material relied upon by the accused is sound, reasonable, and indubitable, i.e., the material is of sterling and impeccable quality

(ii) Step two, whether the material relied upon by the accused, would rule out the assertions contained in the charges levelled against the accused, i.e., the material is sufficient to reject and overrule the factual assertions contained in the complaint, i.e., the material is such, as would persuade a reasonable person to dismiss and condemn the factual basis of the accusations as false.

(iii) Step three, whether the material relied upon by the accused, has not been refuted by the prosecution/complainant; and/or the material is such, that it cannot be justifiably refuted by the prosecution/complainant

(iv) Step four, whether proceeding with the trial would result in an abuse of process of the court, and would not serve the ends of justice

If the answer to all the steps is in the affirmative, judicial conscience of the High Court should persuade it to quash such criminal proceedings, in exercise of power vested in it under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. Such exercise of power, besides doing justice to the accused, would save precious court time, which would otherwise be wasted in holding such a trial (as well as, proceedings arising therefrom) specially when, it is clear that the same would not conclude in the conviction of the accused."

19. Further, in Rajiv Thapar and others v. Madan Lal Kapoor (2013) 3 Supreme Court Cases 330, [LQ/SC/2013/105] the Honourable Supreme Court held as follows:

"22. The issue being examined in the instant case is the jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., if it chooses to quash the initiation of the prosecution against an accused, at the stage of issuing process, or at the stage of committal, or even at the stage of framing of charges. These are all stages before the commencement of the actual trial. The same parameters would naturally be available for later stages as well. The power vested in the High Court under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., at the stages referred to hereinabove, would have far reaching consequences, inasmuch as, it would negate the prosecution's/complainant's case without allowing the prosecution/ complainant to lead evidence. Such a determination must always be rendered with caution, care and circumspection. To invoke its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. the High Court has to be fully satisfied, that the material produced by the accused is such, that would lead to the conclusion, that his/their defence is based on sound, reasonable, and indubitable facts; the material produced is such, as would rule out and displace the assertions contained in the charges levelled against the accused; and the material produced is such, as would clearly reject and overrule the veracity of the allegations contained in the accusations levelled by the prosecution/complainant. It should be sufficient to rule out, reject and discard the accusations levelled by the prosecution/complainant, without the necessity of recording any evidence. For this the material relied upon by the defence should not have been refuted, or alternatively, cannot be justifiably refuted, being material of sterling and impeccable quality. The material relied upon by the accused should be such, as would persuade a reasonable person to dismiss and condemn the actual basis of the accusations as false. In such a situation, the judicial conscience of the High Court would persuade it to exercise its power under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. to quash such criminal proceedings, for that would prevent abuse of process of the court, and secure the ends of justice.

20. In view of the above decisions, on going through the material on record in the form of charge sheet and the documents filed before the Court, in case if it is found prima-facie that even if the trial is conducted, entire exercise becomes futile exercise and until then this Court cannot exercise extraordinary jurisdiction of invoking inherent powers of Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashment of the proceedings.

21. As already observed above, the question of quashing of the case against the petitioner arises only when this Court records a finding that the term of the managing committee consisting of the petitioner continues beyond 31.11.2012(sic). This Court, as observed above, cannot decide without going through the entire record and after full-fledged trial. Therefore, on this ground, the proceedings against the petitioner cannot be quashed.

22. Accordingly, the criminal petition is dismissed. However, the trial Court is directed to proceed with the case in C.C. No. 276 of 2015 on the file of learned III Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Hyderabad against the petitioner-accused No. 2 uninfluenced by the comments and observations made by this Court in this criminal petition.

23. As a sequel, pending Miscellaneous Applications, if any, shall stand closed.